All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Paul Smith <paul@mad-scientist.net>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.27.24] Kernel coredump to a pipe is failing
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:34:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090527203405.GA3296@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1243453783.29250.434.camel@psmith-ubeta.netezza.com>

On 05/27, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:05 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 05/27, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, I think there is a strong reason to handle signals during
> > > > core dumping. The coredump can take a lot of time/resources, not good
> > > > it looks like unkillable procees to users.
> > >
> > > One problem with that is if you send a process a string of signals that cause
> > > a core dump and then kill. In the old case you would just get a full core dump
> > > on the first signal and be done. With your change it would process
> > > the second signal too and stop the dumping and you get none or a partial
> > > core dump. That might well break existing setups.
> >
> > I don't think we should worry about this particular case. Suppose a user
> > does
> >
> > 	kill(pid, SIGQUIT);
> > 	kill(pid, SIGKILL);
>
> I'm not sure about this.  Why even bother with SIGQUIT (or anything
> else) if you're just going to immediately SIGKILL afterwards?

Probably I misunderstood what Andi meant.

> What
> people do all the time, and I think should be supported, is something
> like this:
>
> 	<do 5 times>
> 		kill(pid, SIGINT);
> 		sleep(1);
> 		<if pid is dead break>
> 	kill(pid, SIGKILL);
>
> Often with other signals in the mix like SIGHUP or whatever.  The idea
> is to give the process a chance to do "whatever it does" to clean up and
> then, if it's still there we consider it too wedged to respond and send
> a SIGKILL.  If the cleanup operations invoked by receiving the SIGINT
> caused a core dump, then you wouldn't want the SIGKILL to stop the core
> dump.

Yes. Once again, this change is user-visble and it can confuse/break
existing setups, I agree. As almost any user-visible change ;)

> On the other hand I do agree that it would be nice to be able to smash a
> core dump that was taking a long time or trying to write to an
> unavailable resource like a stalled NFS mount or whatever.  Sigh.

Yes.

Oleg.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-27 20:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-26 16:33 [2.6.27.24] Kernel coredump to a pipe is failing Paul Smith
2009-05-26 18:01 ` Paul Smith
2009-05-26 20:31 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-26 21:09   ` Paul Smith
2009-05-26 23:00   ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-26 23:14     ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-26 23:28       ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-26 23:41         ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-26 23:45           ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-27  0:11             ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-27  0:29               ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-27  6:02                 ` Paul Smith
2009-05-27  6:17                 ` Paul Smith
2009-05-27  7:31                 ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-27  7:45                   ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-27  8:52                     ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-27  8:56                       ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-27 20:25           ` Jesper Juhl
2009-05-29 10:34           ` Pavel Machek
2009-05-27 18:31   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-27 18:50     ` Andi Kleen
2009-05-27 19:05       ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-27 19:49         ` Paul Smith
2009-05-27 20:34           ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-05-27 20:04     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-27 20:22       ` Paul Smith
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-22 12:34 Paul Smith

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090527203405.GA3296@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@mad-scientist.net \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.