On Fri 23-09-16 16:07:24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 23-09-16 15:21:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > This change is simply wrong no matter what.
> >
> > I've just tried to extend the existing
> >
> > /*
> > * Tracers may want to know about even
On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Fri 23-09-16 15:21:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > This change is simply wrong no matter what.
>
> I've just tried to extend the existing
>
> /*
>* Tracers may want to know about even ignored signals.
>*/
> return !t->ptrace;
>
> but
On Fri 23-09-16 15:21:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 23-09-16 12:21:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > > > @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct task
On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Fri 23-09-16 12:21:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > > @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig,
> > > bool force)
> > > if (!sig_task_i
On Fri 23-09-16 11:50:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Sorry for delay, I was offline. I'll try to return to this problem next
> week, currently I can't even read this thread but at first glance the
> proposed patch(es) do not look right...
>
> On 09/21, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > The further investiga
On Fri 23-09-16 12:21:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig,
> > bool force)
> > if (!sig_task_ignored(t, sig, force))
> > return
On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig,
> bool force)
> if (!sig_task_ignored(t, sig, force))
> return 0;
>
> + /* Do not ignore signals sent from child to
Sorry for delay, I was offline. I'll try to return to this problem next
week, currently I can't even read this thread but at first glance the
proposed patch(es) do not look right...
On 09/21, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> The further investigation shown that the tracer (strace) is stuck
> waiting for cr
This patch doesn't help, nor does the previous patch... but with both
applied, all is well. All you have to do now is figure out why :)
Ohh, I should be more explicit, this needs the mm_access part as well.
Sorry for not being clear enough. So the full change is
Ah. That was gonna happen aft
On Thu 22-09-16 13:09:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-09-16 12:09:05, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:53 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 22-09-16 11:40:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > > This patch doesn't help, nor does the previous patch... but with both
> > > >
On Thu 22-09-16 12:09:05, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:53 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 22-09-16 11:40:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > This patch doesn't help, nor does the previous patch... but with both
> > > applied, all is well. All you have to do now is figure o
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:53 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-09-16 11:40:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > This patch doesn't help, nor does the previous patch... but with both
> > applied, all is well. All you have to do now is figure out why :)
>
> Ohh, I should be more explicit, this needs
On Thu 22-09-16 11:40:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:36 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 22-09-16 10:01:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 22-09-16 06:15:02, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > master.today...
> > >
> > > Thanks for trying to reproduce this. My t
On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:36 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-09-16 10:01:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 22-09-16 06:15:02, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > [...]
> > > master.today...
> >
> > Thanks for trying to reproduce this. My tiny laptop (2 cores, 2 threads
> > per core) cannot reproduce
On Thu 22-09-16 10:01:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-09-16 06:15:02, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [...]
> > master.today...
>
> Thanks for trying to reproduce this. My tiny laptop (2 cores, 2 threads
> per core) cannot reproduce even in 10 minutes or so. I've tried to use
> the same machine I was
So I've stared into do_notify_parent some more and the following was
just very confusing
if (!tsk->ptrace && sig == SIGCHLD &&
(psig->action[SIGCHLD-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN ||
(psig->action[SIGCHLD-1].sa.sa_flags & SA_NOCLDWAIT))) {
/*
On Thu 22-09-16 06:15:02, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[...]
> master.today...
Thanks for trying to reproduce this. My tiny laptop (2 cores, 2 threads
per core) cannot reproduce even in 10 minutes or so. I've tried to use
the same machine I was testing with 3.12 kernel (2 sockets, 8 cores per
soc. and 2
On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 17:29 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [I am CCing strace mailing list because even if this turns out to be a
> kernel bug strace seems to be doing something unexpected - more on that
> below]
>
> Hi,
> Aleksa has reported the following lockup when stracing the following go
> p
[I am CCing strace mailing list because even if this turns out to be a
kernel bug strace seems to be doing something unexpected - more on that
below]
Hi,
Aleksa has reported the following lockup when stracing the following go
program
% cat exec.go
package main
import (
"os"
"syscall"
)
19 matches
Mail list logo
