From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 1AAEXr-0006iv-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:16:27 -0700 Received: from panoramix.vasoftware.com ([198.186.202.147] helo=externalmx.vasoftware.com ident=mail) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AAEXo-0002El-En for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:16:24 -0700 Received: from cimice4.lam.cz ([212.71.168.94]:44685 helo=vagabond.light.src) by externalmx.vasoftware.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1AAEX8-0005sm-8d for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:15:42 -0700 Received: from bulb by vagabond.light.src with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AAEWc-0008Kc-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:15:10 +0200 From: Jan Hudec Subject: Re: [uml-devel] unkillable UML threads Message-ID: <20031016201510.GA31337@vagabond> References: <25476.1064407242@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <200310062119.h96LIsGj020742@ccure.karaya.com> <20031011041547.GH13041@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031011041547.GH13041@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:15:10 +0200 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 00:15:47 -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:18:54PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > > > mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca said: > > > FYI: This is without the skas patch, with a stock RH9 kernel on the > > > host. > > > > > > Any thoughts or coroboration would be appreciated. Clearly this is a > > > bug in the RH9 kernel. > > > > It could easily be a UML bug. I do have code which continues threads > > so that they die properly, but it seems not to be happening here. Can > > you tell me how to reproduce it? > > I know of no reliable way to reproduce it, but I commonly do things like > "killall linux" and end up with a suspended process left behind. Maybe it > has something to do with multiple threads receiving the signal? I think it > has also happened when killing only the first process, but I can't test > right now. The way out is to also kill with SIGCONT signal. Since umlinux uses tracing a lot, some processes are often stopped. When you kill the tracer while it's victim is stopped, it's not awoken. So you have to do it yourself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel