On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:09:14PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/20, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 20 March 2015 19:14:04 Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Also. I forgot that the kernel always resets ->exit_signal to SIGCHLD on
> > > exec or reparenting. Reparenting is probably fine. But
On 03/20, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Friday 20 March 2015 19:14:04 Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Also. I forgot that the kernel always resets ->exit_signal to SIGCHLD on
> > exec or reparenting. Reparenting is probably fine. But what about exec?
> > Should it keep ->exit_signal == 0 if "autoreap" ? I
On Friday 20 March 2015 19:14:04 Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Also. I forgot that the kernel always resets ->exit_signal to SIGCHLD on
> exec or reparenting. Reparenting is probably fine. But what about exec?
> Should it keep ->exit_signal == 0 if "autoreap" ? I think it should not, to
> avoid the strang
Josh,
I am really sorry for delay.
On 03/15, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 08:55:06PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > It should be per-process simply because this "autoreap" affects the whole
> > process. And the sub-threads are already "autoreap". And these 2 autoreap's
> >
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 08:55:06PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/15, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 03:52:23PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 03/15, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Add a CLONE_AUTOREAP flag to request this behavior unconditionally,
> > >
> > > Yes, CLONE_
On 03/15, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 03:52:23PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/15, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Add a CLONE_AUTOREAP flag to request this behavior unconditionally,
> >
> > Yes, CLONE_AUTOREAP is much better. And I agree (mostly) with that
> > we should rel
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 03:52:23PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/15, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Add a CLONE_AUTOREAP flag to request this behavior unconditionally,
>
> Yes, CLONE_AUTOREAP is much better. And I agree (mostly) with that
> we should rely on do_notify_parent().
>
> Howver the pat
On 03/15, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> Add a CLONE_AUTOREAP flag to request this behavior unconditionally,
Yes, CLONE_AUTOREAP is much better. And I agree (mostly) with that
we should rely on do_notify_parent().
Howver the patch still doesn't look right. First of all, ->autoreap
should be per-process
If a process launches a child process with the notification signal set
to SIGCHLD (e.g. with fork()), and then the parent process either
ignores SIGCHLD or sets a handler with SA_NOCLDWAIT, the child process
will get automatically reaped without waiting for the parent to wait on
it.
However, there
9 matches
Mail list logo