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 1AAEnO-0000Na-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:32:30 -0700 Received: from blacksheep.csh.rit.edu ([129.21.60.6]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AAEnJ-0005Dv-A5 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:32:25 -0700 Received: from dijkstra (dijkstra.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.152]) by blacksheep.csh.rit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD72A34F for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mdz by dijkstra with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AAEnG-0007EG-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:32:22 -0400 From: Matt Zimmerman Subject: Re: [uml-devel] unkillable UML threads Message-ID: <20031016203222.GV15069@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu> References: <25476.1064407242@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <200310062119.h96LIsGj020742@ccure.karaya.com> <20031011041547.GH13041@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu> <20031016201510.GA31337@vagabond> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031016201510.GA31337@vagabond> 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 16:32:22 -0400 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:15:10PM +0200, Jan Hudec wrote: > 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: > > > 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. Yes, I understand how signals work, thank you. Jeff asked how to reproduce the situation where a suspended process is left behind, because that should not happen. -- - mdz ------------------------------------------------------- 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