Note to all: I'm on the road this week (having had a holiday last week)
and will be somewhat slow in replying on these threads, but I will be
sure to get to them all.
Yes, nobody likes 2 implementations. I guess Roland and me hate
CONFIG_UTRACE much more than anybody else.
:-) We both hate
On Wed 2009-11-25 16:48:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Hello.
This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
with rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace + cleanups in utrace core.
1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 01:24:41PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
FYI, the merge window has not opened yet, so it cannot close in a few
days.
subsystems merged window, not Linus'.
[...] and thus not getting any of the broad -next test coverage is a
pretty bad idea. In the end it will be
On 11/27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 01:24:41PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
FYI, it's been in -mm, that's where it's maintained.
None of the recent mm snapshots has anything utrace related in there,
Well, not that I think this is important, but...
Two weeks ago we
On 11/27, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 03:50:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Ananth, could you please run the test-case from the changelog
below ? I do not really expect this can help, but just in case.
Right, it doesn't help :-(
GDB shows that the parent
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 06:46:27PM +0100, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:37:03PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Could you look at this
ptrace-copy_process-should-disable-stepping.patch
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commitsm=125789789322573
patch? It is not clear
* Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
[...] Given that's it's pretty much too later for the 2.6.33 cycle
anyway I'd suggest you make sure the remaining two major architectures
(arm and mips) get converted, and if the remaining minor architectures
don't manage to get their
* Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:10:52AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[...] Given that's it's pretty much too later for the 2.6.33 cycle
anyway I'd suggest you make sure the remaining two major architectures
(arm and mips) get converted, and if
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 12:37 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Hi Christoph,
The other thing is that this patchset really doesn't quite justify
utrace. It's growing a lot more code without actually growing any
useful functionality. What about all those other utrace killer
features
On 11/26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
What the patches in the current form do is to introduce two different
ptrace implementations, with one used on the architectures getting most
testing and another secondary one for left over embedded or dead
architectures with horrible results.
Yes, nobody
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 06:25:24PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/26, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
step-fork: step-fork.c:56: handler_fail: Assertion `0' failed.
/bin/sh: line 5: 17325 Aborted ${dir}$tst
FAIL: step-fork
Veaceslav doesn't have the time to continue, but he gave me
access to rhts machine ;)
The kernel is 2.6.31.6 btw.
On 11/26, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
Just noticed the test-case fails in handler_fail(). Most probably
this means it is killed by SIGALRM because either parent or child
hang in
On 11/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Then it loops inside __GI__IO_list_lock
0xfeacd24
0xfeacd28
0xfeacd2c
0xfeacd30
0xfeacd34
...
and so on forever,
Dump of assembler code for function __GI__IO_list_lock:
0x0feacce0 __GI__IO_list_lock+0:
Oleg Nesterov writes:
0xfeacd24
0xfeacd28
0xfeacd2c
0xfeacd30
0xfeacd34
...
and so on forever,
...
beg- 0x0feacd24 __GI__IO_list_lock+68: lwarx r0,0,r31
0x0feacd28 __GI__IO_list_lock+72: cmpwr0,r11
0x0feacd2c
Paul Mackerras pau...@samba.org writes:
I believe gdb has code to recognize this kind of sequence and run
through it without stopping until after the bne, precisely to avoid
this problem.
See gdb/rs6000-tdep.c:ppc_deal_with_atomic_sequence.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 03:50:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
I changed the subject. This bug has nothing to do with utrace,
the kernel fails with or without these changes.
On 11/26, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 04:40:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Hello.
This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
with rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace + cleanups in utrace core.
1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am sending them to simplify the
review.
8-12 don not change the
On 11/25, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
I ran the ptrace-tests testsuite [1] on powerpc on the vanilla ptrace
and then with ptrace/utrace. The results for ptrace/utrace look better
:-)
Great! thanks a lot Ananth for doing this.
ptrace-utrace still fails 2 tests,
FAIL: syscall-reset
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Hello.
This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
with rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace + cleanups in utrace core.
1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am sending them to simplify the
review.
8-12 don not change the
On 11/25, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Hello.
This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
with rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace + cleanups in utrace core.
1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am sending them to simplify
Hi Christoph,
The other thing is that this patchset really doesn't quite justify
utrace. It's growing a lot more code without actually growing any
useful functionality. What about all those other utrace killer
features that have been promised for a long time?
We are working on
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 04:40:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/25, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
I ran the ptrace-tests testsuite [1] on powerpc on the vanilla ptrace
and then with ptrace/utrace. The results for ptrace/utrace look better
:-)
Great! thanks a lot Ananth for
Hello.
This is the new iteration of Roland's utrace patch, this time
with rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace + cleanups in utrace core.
1-7 are already in -mm tree, I am sending them to simplify the
review.
8-12 don not change the behaviour, simple preparations.
13-14 add utrace-ptrace and utrace
23 matches
Mail list logo
