digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 318] New: wait does not release thread resources on Linux
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (33/33) Sep 02 2006 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318
- Sean Kelly (17/56) Sep 02 2006 I think line 667 of thread.d should be changed from:
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/11) Nov 19 2006 Yes, this is very important. This is a huge bug.
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (22/22) Oct 19 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (14/14) Oct 21 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Nov 03 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318 Summary: wait does not release thread resources on Linux Product: D Version: 0.165 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P2 Component: Phobos AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com ReportedBy: mclysenk mtu.edu While wait is supposed to release a thread's resources, it will fail if the thread has already completed. This makes it impossible to use more than 400 threads reliably. Here is an example which demonstrates the problem: import std.stdio, std.thread; void main() { for(int i=0; i<80000; i++) { writefln("Creating thread %d", i); Thread t = new Thread({writefln(" Created!"); return 0;}); t.start; for(int x=0; x<1000; x++) Thread.yield; t.wait; writefln(" Finished."); } } Within a few hundred iterations, this code will likely produce a "failed to start" error. From my testing, this issue only affects Linux. So far, there are no workarounds. --
Sep 02 2006
d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318 Summary: wait does not release thread resources on Linux Product: D Version: 0.165 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P2 Component: Phobos AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com ReportedBy: mclysenk mtu.edu While wait is supposed to release a thread's resources, it will fail if the thread has already completed. This makes it impossible to use more than 400 threads reliably. Here is an example which demonstrates the problem: import std.stdio, std.thread; void main() { for(int i=0; i<80000; i++) { writefln("Creating thread %d", i); Thread t = new Thread({writefln(" Created!"); return 0;}); t.start; for(int x=0; x<1000; x++) Thread.yield; t.wait; writefln(" Finished."); } } Within a few hundred iterations, this code will likely produce a "failed to start" error. From my testing, this issue only affects Linux.I think line 667 of thread.d should be changed from: if (state == TS.RUNNING) to: if (state != TS.INITIAL) Because it is not only legal to call pthread_join on a thread that has run and finished, but calling pthread_join or pthread_detach is required for the thread resources to be released. However, it is illegal to call pthread_join more than once, and I believe it is also illegal to detach a thread that has already been joined, so 'id' should probably be cleared after join/detach is called, and this value tested along with 'state' before performing thread ops. As an unrelated issue, I just noticed that CloseHandle is not being called on the thread handle for Win32, and pthread_detach is not being called for Posix. I think this should be done in a thread dtor or the equivalent to ensure resources are properly released. Sean
Sep 02 2006
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318As an unrelated issue, I just noticed that CloseHandle is not being called on the thread handle for Win32, and pthread_detach is not being called for Posix. I think this should be done in a thread dtor or the equivalent to ensure resources are properly released.Yes, this is very important. This is a huge bug. Sometimes one uses "throwaway" threads that just do one thing and terminate. Currently, it will cause a huge leak and potential errors. --
Nov 19 2006
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318 braddr puremagic.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bugzilla digitalmars.com |braddr puremagic.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Created an attachment (id=197) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=197&action=view) Proposed fix for phobos 1.x - v1 I've run this through a bit of testing of this diff, both 1.x and 2.x, using the provided example test case and a few variations of my own. (so far just on linux, but I'll test on windows shortly). I can no longer reproduce the problem. That said, threading problems are notoriously difficult to be sure about. I'd appreciate it if some of you could take a look and hopefully even build your own phobos and do some testing. I need to think a little bit more about the running -> terminated -> finished transition steps a bit to make sure it's safe in all cases. I really would prefer not to have to make state management synchronized. Thanks, Brad --
Oct 19 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318 braddr puremagic.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- obsolete| | Created an attachment (id=198) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=198&action=view) patch v2 Further testing showed race conditions between the gc and the thread library so I went ahead with the conservative approach. I'm not happy with this many sync points, but my test cases no longer show any problems. --
Oct 21 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=318 bugzilla digitalmars.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED Fixed dmd 1.023 and 2.007 --
Nov 03 2007