Issue #19473 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).
Run signal handlers not on the main thread but another thread.
While I don't have a strong opinion on this, I personally feel this approach makes more sense. However, ko1 said that users can just write this explicitly themselves. Indeed, creating a new thread for each signal arrival is extremely simple. ```ruby trap { ... } # is rewritten to: trap { Thread.new { ... } } ``` Setting up a single, dedicated thread to execute signal handlers serially is more complex, but it still doesn't require a lot of code. ```ruby trap { ... } # is rewritten to: Q = Queue.new Thread.new do Q.each { ... } end trap { Q << it } ``` If core language support were to be added for this, I suppose it would be for cases where you want to force a trap handler written by someone else (e.g., in a gem) to run in a separate thread. But I wonder, is such a scenario realistic? ---------------------------------------- Bug #19473: can't be called from trap context (ThreadError) is too limiting https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19473#change-113969 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open * ruby -v: ruby 3.2.1 (2023-02-08 revision 31819e82c8) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Simple reproducer: ``` $ ruby -ve 'm=Mutex.new; trap(:HUP) { m.synchronize { p :OK } }; Process.kill :HUP, Process.pid; sleep 0.1' ruby 3.2.1 (2023-02-08 revision 31819e82c8) [x86_64-linux] -e:1:in `synchronize': can't be called from trap context (ThreadError) from -e:1:in `block in <main>' from -e:1:in `kill' from -e:1:in `<main>' ``` Expected behavior: ``` $ ruby -ve 'm=Mutex.new; trap(:HUP) { m.synchronize { p :OK } }; Process.kill :HUP, Process.pid; sleep 0.1' truffleruby 22.3.1, like ruby 3.0.3, GraalVM CE Native [x86_64-linux] :OK $ ruby -ve 'm=Mutex.new; trap(:HUP) { m.synchronize { p :OK } }; Process.kill :HUP, Process.pid; sleep 0.1' jruby 9.4.0.0 (3.1.0) 2022-11-23 95c0ec159f OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 17.0.6+10 on 17.0.6+10 +jit [x86_64-linux] :OK ``` This exception is highly problematic, for instance it breaks `Timeout.timeout` in `trap`: https://github.com/ruby/timeout/issues/17#issuecomment-1142035939 I suppose this behavior is because *sometimes* it's problematic to lock a Mutex in trap, e.g., if it's already locked by the main thread/fiber. But that would otherwise already raise `deadlock; recursive locking (ThreadError)`, so there is no point to fail early. And that's just one case, not all, so we should not always raise an exception. There seems to be no valid reason to prevent *all* `Mutex#synchronize` in `trap`. After all, if the Mutex for instance is only used in `trap`, it's well-defined AFAIK. For instance a given trap handler does not seem executed concurrently: ``` $ ruby -ve 'trap(:HUP) { puts "in trap\n"+caller.join("\n")+"\n\n"; sleep 0.1 }; pid = Process.pid; Process.wait fork { 20.times { Process.kill :HUP, pid } }; sleep 1' ruby 3.2.1 (2023-02-08 revision 31819e82c8) [x86_64-linux] in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' ``` And if the trap handler using the Mutex is never called while the Mutex is held by the main thread/fiber, there is also no problem. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/