From: Christian Borntraeger <linux-kernel@borntraeger.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>,
Gergely Czuczy <phoemix@harmless.hu>,
itk-sysadm@ppke.hu
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 VS 2.6 fork VS thread creation time test
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 21:47:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200405232147.36372.linux-kernel@borntraeger.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405230247450.8199@dlang.diginsite.com>
David Lang wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2004, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Gergely Czuczy wrote:
> > > failed. As I told it above all the processes are teminated right
> > > after creation, but there were a lot of defunct processes in the
> > > system, and they were only gone when the parent termineted.
> > Have you heard of wait, waitpid and pthread_join?
> there really is some sort of problem with 2.6.6 in this area. I have an
Well in the example given by Gergely there was no wait call at all.
Therefore I believe your problem is not related to his one.
What do you mean by with 2.6.6. Does this testcase behaves differently with
other kernel versions? Which version is the first with this problem?
> the prarent deals with sigchild by
> handler{
> while ( wait(...) >0);
> signal(SIGCHLD, handler);
> }
You run signal within the signal handler. This is not necessary, although
this should cause no problems. Nevertheless, can you try your test without
signal in the signal handler?
cheers
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-23 19:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-23 7:57 Linux 2.4 VS 2.6 fork VS thread creation time test Gergely Czuczy
2004-05-23 8:55 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-23 9:03 ` Gergely Czuczy
2004-05-23 9:38 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-23 15:08 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-05-23 9:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2004-05-23 10:00 ` David Lang
2004-05-23 19:47 ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2004-05-24 0:06 ` David Lang
[not found] ` <1085325156.622.0.camel@boxen>
[not found] ` <D53BF43BC70DD511A22500508BB3C0070A73CE83@wlvexc00.diginsite.com>
2004-05-24 7:15 ` David Lang
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=200405232147.36372.linux-kernel@borntraeger.net \
--to=linux-kernel@borntraeger.net \
--cc=david.lang@digitalinsight.com \
--cc=itk-sysadm@ppke.hu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phoemix@harmless.hu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox