public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox