Re: [Boost-users] [interprocesss] managed_mapped_file mutex question

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [interprocesss] managed_mapped_file mutex question
From: Brett Gmoser (bgmoser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-19 14:16:31

On 3/19/2010 6:06 AM, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
> El 19/03/2010 6:00, Andy Wiese escribió:
>> I have a couple of questions about crash protection, which is very
>> important in this case:
>> 1. I am using only file_lock, because it is guaranteed to be released if
>> the process crashes (if I understand correctly). However, file_lock has
>> its limitations. If I use a named_recursive_mutex instead, is there any
>> way to clear the mutex if the process terminates while holding the 
>> mutex?
>
> No, this is a difficult problem to solve. I plan to work on this when 
> I get some time but this is one of the weak points of the library.

Ion,

Thanks for all your hard work on Interprocess, it's a great library. Do 
you mind giving us some ideas about how you plan to solve that problem? 
I'm in a position where I need to solve it, maybe I can contribute, or 
at least use ideas you may have as a base to solve it on my own.

One of my main issues is that the library seems to be designed around a 
"single parent, multiple children" style. In my situation, FastCGI (and 
the web server) launches my processes, and the children cannot 
communicate with their parent. They're all independent.  The problem I'm 
having is that without a parent process to control what happens to the 
children, they become lost and cannot function if one of them crashes.