1.0.11.17: fixed dumb buglet in DEFMACRO NAMED-LET

[sbcl.git] / src / code / sysmacs.lisp

diff --git a/src/code/sysmacs.lisp b/src/code/sysmacs.lisp
index b61e1b3..b953cbc 100644 (file)
--- a/src/code/sysmacs.lisp
+++ b/src/code/sysmacs.lisp
@@ -32,17 +32,46 @@
 
 (defmacro without-gcing (&body body)
   #!+sb-doc
-  "Executes the forms in the body without doing a garbage
-collection. It inhibits both automatically and explicitly triggered
-gcs. Finally, upon leaving the BODY if gc is not inhibited it runs the
-pending gc. Similarly, if gc is triggered in another thread then it
-waits until gc is enabled in this thread."
-  `(unwind-protect
-        (let ((*gc-inhibit* t))
-          ,@body)
-     ;; the test is racy, but it can err only on the overeager side
-     (sb!kernel::maybe-handle-pending-gc)))
-
+  "Executes the forms in the body without doing a garbage collection. It
+inhibits both automatically and explicitly triggered collections. Finally,
+upon leaving the BODY if gc is not inhibited it runs the pending gc.
+Similarly, if gc is triggered in another thread then it waits until gc is
+enabled in this thread.
+
+Implies SB-SYS:WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS for BODY, and causes any nested
+SB-SYS:WITH-INTERRUPTS to signal a warning during execution of the BODY.
+
+Should be used with great care, and not at all in multithreaded application
+code: Any locks that are ever acquired while GC is inhibited need to be always
+held with GC inhibited to prevent deadlocks: if T1 holds the lock and is
+stopped for GC while T2 is waiting for the lock inside WITHOUT-GCING the
+system will be deadlocked. Since SBCL does not currently document its internal
+locks, application code can never be certain that this invariant is
+maintained."
+  (with-unique-names (without-gcing-body)
+    `(flet ((,without-gcing-body ()
+              ,@body))
+       (if *gc-inhibit*
+           (,without-gcing-body)
+           (without-interrupts
+             ;; We need to disable interrupts before disabling GC, so that
+             ;; signal handlers using locks don't accidentally try to grab
+             ;; them with GC inhibited.
+             ;;
+             ;; It would be nice to implement this with just a single UWP, but
+             ;; unfortunately it seems that it cannot be done: the naive
+             ;; solution of binding both *INTERRUPTS-ENABLED* and
+             ;; *GC-INHIBIT*, and checking for both pending GC and interrupts
+             ;; in the cleanup breaks if we have a GC pending, but no
+             ;; interrupts, and we receive an asynch unwind while checking for
+             ;; the pending GC: we unwind before handling the pending GC, and
+             ;; will be left running with further GCs blocked due to the GC
+             ;; pending flag.
+             (unwind-protect
+                  (let ((*gc-inhibit* t))
+                    (,without-gcing-body))
+               (when (or *gc-pending* #!+sb-thread *stop-for-gc-pending*)
+                 (sb!unix::receive-pending-interrupt))))))))
 \f
 ;;; EOF-OR-LOSE is a useful macro that handles EOF.
 (defmacro eof-or-lose (stream eof-error-p eof-value)