-
Jean Boussier authored
[Feature #20590] For better of for worse, fork(2) remain the primary provider of parallelism in Ruby programs. Even though it's frowned uppon in many circles, and a lot of literature will simply state that only async-signal safe APIs are safe to use after `fork()`, in practice most APIs work well as long as you are careful about not forking while another thread is holding a pthread mutex. One of the APIs that is known cause fork safety issues is `getaddrinfo`. If you fork while another thread is inside `getaddrinfo`, a mutex may be left locked in the child, with no way to unlock it. I think we could reduce the impact of these problem by preventing in for the most notorious and common cases, by locking around `fork(2)` and known unsafe APIs with a read-write lock.
Jean Boussier authored[Feature #20590] For better of for worse, fork(2) remain the primary provider of parallelism in Ruby programs. Even though it's frowned uppon in many circles, and a lot of literature will simply state that only async-signal safe APIs are safe to use after `fork()`, in practice most APIs work well as long as you are careful about not forking while another thread is holding a pthread mutex. One of the APIs that is known cause fork safety issues is `getaddrinfo`. If you fork while another thread is inside `getaddrinfo`, a mutex may be left locked in the child, with no way to unlock it. I think we could reduce the impact of these problem by preventing in for the most notorious and common cases, by locking around `fork(2)` and known unsafe APIs with a read-write lock.
Loading