Re: powerpc: fork stepping (Was: [RFC, PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace)

2009-11-27 Thread Oleg Nesterov
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

Re: powerpc: fork stepping (Was: [RFC, PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace)

2009-11-27 Thread Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
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

Re: powerpc: fork stepping (Was: [RFC, PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace)

2009-11-26 Thread Veaceslav Falico
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

Re: powerpc: fork stepping (Was: [RFC, PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace)

2009-11-26 Thread Oleg Nesterov
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

Re: powerpc: fork stepping (Was: [RFC, PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace)

2009-11-26 Thread Oleg Nesterov
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:

Re: powerpc: fork stepping (Was: [RFC, PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace)

2009-11-26 Thread Paul Mackerras
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

Re: powerpc: fork stepping (Was: [RFC, PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace)

2009-11-26 Thread Andreas Schwab
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

Re: powerpc: fork stepping (Was: [RFC, PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace)

2009-11-26 Thread Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
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