From: josh@joshtriplett.org (Josh Triplett)
Subject: [lttng-dev] [rp] [RFC] Userspace RCU library internal error handling
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:59:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120621185941.GC26361@leaf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120621164113.GA21197@Krystal>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:41:13PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Currently, liburcu calls "exit(-1)" upon internal consistency error.
> This is not pretty, and usually frowned upon in libraries.
Agreed.
> One example of failure path where we use this is if pthread_mutex_lock()
> would happen to fail within synchronize_rcu(). Clearly, this should
> _never_ happen: it would typically be triggered only by memory
> corruption (or other terrible things like that). That being said, we
> clearly don't want to make "synchronize_rcu()" return errors like that
> to the application, because it would complexify the application error
> handling needlessly.
I think you can safely ignore any error conditions you know you can't
trigger. pthread_mutex_lock can only return an error under two
conditions: an uninitialized mutex, or an error-checking mutex already
locked by the current thread. Neither of those can happen in this case.
Given that, I'd suggest either calling pthread_mutex_lock and ignoring
any possibility of error, or adding an assert.
> So instead of calling exit(-1), one possibility would be to do something
> like this:
>
> #include <signal.h>
> #include <pthread.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #define urcu_die(fmt, ...) \
> do { \
> fprintf(stderr, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> (void) pthread_kill(pthread_self(), SIGBUS); \
> } while (0)
>
> and call urcu_die(); in those "unrecoverable error" cases, instead of
> calling exit(-1). Therefore, if an application chooses to trap those
> signals, it can, which is otherwise not possible with a direct call to
> exit().
It looks like you want to use signals as a kind of exception mechanism,
to allow the application to clean up (though not to recover). assert
seems much clearer to me for "this can't happen" cases, and assert also
generates a signal that the application can catch and clean up.
- Josh Triplett
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-21 18:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-21 16:41 [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2012-06-21 16:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-06-21 18:59 ` Josh Triplett [this message]
2012-06-21 19:03 ` [lttng-dev] [rp] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2012-06-21 19:14 ` [lttng-dev] [RFC PATCH] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2012-06-21 19:28 ` [lttng-dev] [rp] [RFC] " Josh Triplett
2012-06-21 19:48 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2012-06-21 21:21 ` Josh Triplett
2012-06-22 15:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2012-06-22 19:55 ` Josh Triplett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120621185941.GC26361@leaf \
--to=josh@joshtriplett.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox