BIND 10 #420: Unresponsive process can block msgq
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Mon Jan 24 13:13:59 UTC 2011
#420: Unresponsive process can block msgq
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: shane | Owner: vorner
Type: defect | Status: reviewing
Priority: major | Milestone: A-Team-
Component: msgq | Sprint-20110126
Keywords: | Resolution:
Estimated Number of Hours: 13.0 | Sensitive: 0
Billable?: 1 | Add Hours to Ticket: 0
Internal?: 0 | Total Hours: 0.5
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by zzchen_pku):
* owner: zzchen_pku => vorner
Comment:
Replying to [comment:8 vorner]:
> Well, I tried that and python complains. It seems the default parameter
values are looked up before the select module is properly imported.
>
> However, 0 doesn't mean the KQ_FILTER_READ, it means no additional
filters. I modified the variable name so it is more obvious what it means.
Bit or of no flags is 0 (you see that in C all the time, 0 means default).
>
> I could add a bool parameter instead to say if we want writing or not,
if it helps.
Okay.
> But I didn't introduce them. They seem to be notes for future, mostly
about logging and stuff like that, waiting for something to be
implemented. Should I remove them? I wasn't sure I wouldn't delete a note
that would be useful in future (they would be preserved in the history,
but who looks there if not searching for something specific?).
For this purpose, I am okay with it.
> > - There are some duplicate code between send_prepared_msg() and
process_write(),is it possible to eliminate them?
>
> I eliminated something, I can't find any more duplicates except for
single line ones (which is not shortened by putting them into a function).
>
> And I forgot to mention a changelog entry last time:
> {{{
> [bug]
> One frozen process no longer freezes the whole b10-msgq. It caused the
whole system
> to stop working.
> }}}
I see it.
Another problem:
lines 348~350 from send_prepared_msg()
{{{
buff += msg[amount_sent:]
else:
buff = msg
}}}
Maybe I misread something, shouldn't we exchange line 348 with 350?
--
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/420#comment:9>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list