Hello,
I would like to share two observations -
1. Is it necessary to initialize nrcpus = 2 anymore?
2. Another problem may happen in the code below where waitpid is called -
for (i = 0; i < nrcpus; i++) {
int status;
waitpid(pids[i], &status, 0);
if (status != 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "test for cpu %d has failed\n", i);
ret = 1;
}
}
Since for offline cpus, no child process is created, now these cpus
pid[i]'s will be zero (due to calloc). This will change the meaning of
waitpid function as man page says -
pid 0 - meaning wait for any child process whose process group ID
is equal to that of the calling process.
I think a check should be added before waitpid call -
if (pids[i] != 0)
waitpid(pids[i], &status, 0);
--
Thanks,
-Meraj
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sanjay Singh Rawat <
[email protected]> wrote:
> currently percpu process array is set to 2, which results in segfault
>
> Signed-off-by: Sanjay Singh Rawat <[email protected]>
> ---
> cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c b/cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c
> index 5e7320f..09009ef 100644
> --- a/cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c
> +++ b/cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c
> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int ret, i, nrcpus = 2;
> int nrsleeps, delay;
> - pid_t pids[nrcpus];
> + pid_t *pids;
> struct timex timex = { 0 };
>
> if (adjtimex(&timex) < 0) {
> @@ -121,6 +121,11 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> }
>
> fprintf(stderr, "found %d cpu(s)\n", nrcpus);
> + pids = (pid_t *) calloc(nrcpus, sizeof(pid_t));
> + if (pids == NULL) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "error: calloc failed\n");
> + return 1;
> + }
>
> for (i = 0; i < nrcpus; i++) {
>
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linaro-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
>
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
