Re: Can EINTR be handled the way BSD handles it? -- a plea from a user-land programmer...

[george@moberg.com]

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> 
> george@moberg.com writes:
> 
> > Can we _PLEASE_PLEASE_PLEASE_ not do this anymore and have the kernel do
> > what BSD does:  re-start the interrupted call?
> 
> This is crap.  Returning EINTR is necessary for many applications.
> 
> --
> ---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
> Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
> Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------

After reading about SA_RESTART, ok.  However, couldn't those
applications that require it enable this behaviour explicitly?

The problem I'm having right now is with pthread_create() failing
because deep somewhere in either the kernel or glibc, nanosleep()
returns EINTR during said pthread_create() and pthread_create() fails.

I've got a multithreaded program written using gcc (2.95.2) and glibc
(2.1.3), and it's talking to a natively threaded Java program (tried
both Sun & Blackdown ports, both 1.2.2 and 1.3) on a 2.2.17 kernel.  The
C program is listening for incoming socket connections, and the Java
program is hammering on it with many parallel connect() calls.  After a
short, a bit random interval, pthread_create() will fail in either my
program, or deep in the Java VM.  I assume that the Java VM is using
pthread_create().

I don't mean to sound like a psycho on this, but I can't see why
SA_RESTART isn't the default behavior.  Maybe I'm missing something
somewhere.
--
George T. Talbot
<george at moberg dot com>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/