On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 17:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:16:21 -0500 > Anton Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
Yup, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. > > > > > > If we're going to do this then we should probably create some new function > > > (with a better name) which takes tasklsit_lock and then calls > > > zap_other_threads(). I expect this will be a write_lock_irq() since zap_other_threads will be doing a bit more than just reading the task info. This will be down in a do-page-fault failure path (see arch/*/mm/fault.c). I wonder if calling write_lock is going to be safe, or if its possible to get into a deadlock? i.e. should I branch back up to the survive: label if I can't take the lock? Would that even be sufficient? or is it not an issue here? > > > > > > Does this patch fix any observed-in-the-real-world problem? If so, please > > > describe it. > > > > Yeah we have had complaints where threaded apps have only one thread > > shot down instead of the entire process. This leaves the application in > > a bad state, whereas if it had been killed cleanly the application could > > have restarted. > > > > My understanding is that fatal signals should kill all threads in the > > group. > > > > OK, well could we please get all that info appropriatelt captured in #2's > changelog? Yup, next spin I'll add more to the changelog. > > Other architectures will probably need to implement this. -Will - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
