Re: [BUG] Unix Builds Requires Pthread Support (was [PATCH v4 00/12] Simple IPC Mechanism)
- From
- Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
- Date
- May 18, 2021, 13:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7d578db0-c1a7-90c5-dd9c-aadf9eae2e3f@jeffhostetler.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <YKOvBGjAC2kVPVa7@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On 5/18/21 8:11 AM, Jeff King wrote:
Show 46 quoted lines
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 07:21:33AM -0400, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > >>> In the simple-ipc API, there's an explicit "async" interface. But it's >>> not clear to me how rich it expects the communication with the caller to >>> be (i.e., whether we could get away with the fork() trick here). Or if >>> it would be OK for the threading to remain an implementation detail, >>> with one "worker" upon whom we wait for completion. >>> >> >> TBH I forgot that we still support NO_PTHREAD systems. >> I seem to remember that we got rid of some of the non-pthread >> stub functions at one point, but I'm fuzzy on the details. > > You're probably thinking of when we got rid of a bunch of #ifdef code > paths in index-pack, and replaced it with stubs that turn the pthread > calls into "do nothing" (so all the ugly stuff is in thread-utils.h > now). But we still very much support systems that don't handle pthreads > at all. > >> WRT to "simple ipc" (and future "builtin fsmonitor"), it's heavily >> threaded. There's no point in trying to fake it with forks. >> >> The server side of simple ipc implements a thread pool. And >> the builtin fsmonitor will use a thread to monitor FS events >> and that thread pool to respond to clients. All driven from a >> shared queue of events. >> >> It would be a major overhaul to do all that without threads >> -- and even that assumes that nonstop has a sufficient file >> system notification mechanism. > > OK, that matches my guess from a brief look at the code. Thanks for > confirming. > >> So, yes, we should ifdef it out as Peff suggests. > > The patch I sent wasn't really tested beyond confirming that "make > NO_PTHREADS=1" finished compiling (and that test-tool simple-ipc > barfed appropriately at runtime). > > Do you want to pick it up from there and produce a polished patch? I > think we should deal with this prior to the v2.32.0 release (and thanks > Randall for testing and finding it during the -rc0 period). > > -Peff >
yeah, i'll take it from here and get a patch out today.
Thanks! Jeff