[squeak-dev] Stalling own SqueakSource instance
Tobias Pape
Das.Linux at gmx.de
Thu May 14 08:15:37 UTC 2009
Hello John,
Am 2009-05-13 um 21:11 schrieb John M McIntosh:
> sounds like
>
> http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6581
Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case.
I do not experiences this particular symptoms:
- In the case of 100% cpu usage, I’m not able to
VNC the image anymore.
- If I’m already connected by VNC, moving the mouse does
not help.
- It only happens in case of a HTTP PUT (i.e., pushing a new
mcz) that happens to be aborted by the use.
Debugging such a process revealed the following:
- in WAKom>>process: the PUT-specific beaviour is called,
i.e., the PUTData is tried to be retrieved
(*in the meantime, the “other end” aborts the upload, thus closing
the connection. The Socket is still connected on “out end”, though.)
-- we are now in SocketStream>>next:
--- the End of the Stream is tested (#atEnd)
-- because “our end” is still connected (I think) and we did not receive
all data (because the connection was closed on the other end) we
are not atEnd and there seems to be data available
--- thus we reach SocketStream>>receiveData
---- and Socket>>receiveDataTimeout:into:
----- and Socket>>receiveDataTimeout:into:startingAt:
----- there, the line
! self waitForDataFor: timeout ifClosed: [] ifTimeOut: [].
occurs.
-------Socket>>waitForDataFor:ifClosed:ifTimeOut: determines that the
Socket is closed (in contrary to #atEnd above), yet the given
closedBlock is empty
----- thus, in and Socket>>receiveDataTimeout:into:startingAt: the
primitve
for reading data is called, where 0 is returned
--- therefore, in SocketStream>>receiveData the bytesRead is 0 and
inStream is not altered
-- we are now back in SocketStream>>next:
atEnd, again, says that the stream is not at end and still connected.
and since the inStream is unaltered, the second condition states that
there
would be data to read.
I consider this a vicious circle.
The only cure I found up until now was manually terminating these
processes.
Can somebody confirm this? I’d be grateful for any response.
So Long,
-Tobias
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: Signierter Teil der Nachricht
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090514/d80663ea/PGP.pgp
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|