[Openmcl-devel] Unix signal handling

[Ron Garret]

Seems to me the Right Way to do this is not to poll but to set up a message queue.  The actual signal handlers would push their signal number onto the queue, and then there would be a signal servicing thread popping things off the queue and calling the appropriate (user-settable) handler function, which would now be running in a regular Lisp callback context.  Seems like this ought to be doable at the user level through the FFI.

rg

On Jul 6, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Scott L. Burson wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Gary Byers <gb at clozure.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
> 
> You added  ccl:*quit-interrupt-hook*, which is called
> on SIGTERM.  Does it have these problems?
> 
> No.
> 
> There's a handler for SIGTERM (and SIGINT and IIRC SIGQUIT)
> in the lisp kernel; it just sets a flag in memory indicating
> which of those signals have been received since the flag was
> last cleared.
> 
> Some lisp code that runs a few times a second checks/clears that flag
> and interrupts some thread.  There are a few hooks that give a little
> bit of control over what thread gets interrupted and (in the case of
> SIGQUIT/SIGTERM) what function gets called.  That's (at most) just a
> matter of interrupting a thread via PROCESS-INTERRUPT, and
> PROCESS-INTERRUPT tries to be very careful about when/how the target
> thread is interrupted.
> 
> A more general mechanism would allow you to do something like:
> 
> (define-signal-handler SIGQUIT
>  ;; This runs on an arbitrary thread at a more-or-less arbitrary
>  ;; time.  The implementation has ensured that it's GC-safe to
>  ;; run lisp code now; beyond that, you have enough rope to hang
>  ;; yourself in lots of ways, and you may not be able to safely
>  ;; do too much more than set a flag here.
>  (arbitrary-code ...))
> 
> but that mechanism doesn't exist and would require some implementation
> support to even offer the GC-safety that the comment describes.
> 
>  
> But couldn't this mechanism be implemented in exactly the same way as you have described doing for SIGTERM?  It would certainly be adequate for my needs; I don't need microsecond response times (though 250ms would be a bit on the long side; maybe the poll rate of "a few times a second" needs to be 20/sec or so).
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openmcl-devel mailing list
> Openmcl-devel at clozure.com
> http://clozure.com/mailman/listinfo/openmcl-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/attachments/20100706/32b00d6e/attachment.htm>