From: kladit@t-online.de (Klaus Dittrich)
To: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@in.ibm.com>,
Klaus Dittrich <kladit@t-online.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: do_wait fix for 2.6.10-rc1
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:53:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41AB0DA5.5030906@xeon2.local.here> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41AA9F21.9060408@in.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]
Sripathi Kodi wrote:
> Can you test this patch please?
>
>> --
>> Regards Klaus
>
>
> Hi Klaus,
>
> I have tested your patch against my testcase and it seems to be alright.
>
> My testcase is right here in my first post on LKML about this:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/11/5/34! The essence of the testcase is two
> threads racing in waitpid to collect the exit status of a child.
> Sometimes the thread that loses this race gets stuck in waitpid
> forever unless manually interrupted. I had been able to recreate this
> problem only on a multiprocessor machine. The essence of the fix was
> to make the thread that loses this race not to set 'flag =1'. The
> patch you sent me does not alter this behavior, so it works alright.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Sripathi.
I encountered a bug in waitpid after Sripathi's patch
was applied.
See lkml
"kernel reports kill too late? Thu Nov 18 2004 - 07:36:48 EST"
Attached is a patch for do_wait() that may fix both problems.
--
Regards Klaus
[-- Attachment #2: 2patch-exit.c --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 937 bytes --]
--- kernel/exit.ORIG.c 2004-11-24 17:20:32.000000000 +0100
+++ kernel/exit.c 2004-11-26 17:38:36.000000000 +0100
@@ -1316,6 +1316,9 @@ static long do_wait(pid_t pid, int optio
DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
struct task_struct *tsk;
int flag, retval;
+ struct task_struct *p;
+ struct list_head *_p;
+ int ret;
add_wait_queue(¤t->wait_chldexit,&wait);
repeat:
@@ -1324,9 +1327,6 @@ repeat:
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
tsk = current;
do {
- struct task_struct *p;
- struct list_head *_p;
- int ret;
list_for_each(_p,&tsk->children) {
p = list_entry(_p,struct task_struct,sibling);
@@ -1377,10 +1377,11 @@ repeat:
goto end;
break;
}
- flag = 1;
check_continued:
- if (!unlikely(options & WCONTINUED))
+ if (!unlikely(options & WCONTINUED)) {
+ flag = 1;
continue;
+ }
retval = wait_task_continued(
p, (options & WNOWAIT),
infop, stat_addr, ru);
parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-29 11:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <41AA9F21.9060408@in.ibm.com>]
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=41AB0DA5.5030906@xeon2.local.here \
--to=kladit@t-online.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sripathik@in.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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