From: Colin Nevin (colin_nevin at domain yahoo.com)
Date: Fri 06 Sep 2002 - 15:14:56 IST
Success! I got around the problem by making my
subprocesses sleep for 20milliseconds before they go
off and try sync'ing via semop(), does this imply
something odd (or slow) with the system V
implementation of semop in the kernel? As the same
code runs fine on SCO, though it could just be one of
those mysteries in life...lol
--- Padraig Brady <padraig.brady at domain corvil.com> wrote: >
Colin Nevin wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > I have a question which is a bit tricky and was
> > wondering of anyone has come across this problem
> > before or could point me in the right direction.
> > I am involved in porting a SCO unix application to
> > Linux, and we have encountered a problem with the
> > semaphores are being handled.
> I would guess that the "error" values returned
> are not being processed correctly. I think his would
> be the main source of differences between SCO and
> if there were any.
> info libc "Interrupted Primitives" might have
> also have pertinent info?
> > I have also noticed that if I introduce a slight
> > between changing semaphore states the problem goes
> > away, but this causes our entire application to
> > really sloooww !! lol
> Think that's bad! Eircell bought a mad
> mainframe class machine from Compaq (GS160) to
> run their billing app faster. But it ran at exactly
> the same speed for some reason. I was called in
> and promptly found a sleep(1) synchronisation
> between 2 processes! So much for throwing hardware
> at a problem.
> Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug at domain linux.ie
> http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for
> (un)subscription information.
> List maintainer: listmaster at domain linux.ie
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:18:42 GMT