From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Clemens Famulla-Conrad <cfamullaconrad@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 14:49:04 +0100
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v1] cgroup_fj_stress: Avoid killall
In-Reply-To: <20191105132004.GA20849@dell5510>
References: <20191105112000.20633-1-cfamullaconrad@suse.de>
 <20191105132004.GA20849@dell5510>
Message-ID: <1572961744.4619.20.camel@suse.de>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

Hi Petr,

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 14:20 +0100, Petr Vorel wrote:
<snip>
> I wonder if we also want to kill cgroup_fj_proc this way (see
> cgroup_fj_common.sh).

I'm not sure if I understand you. We do kill cgroup_fj_proc this way.
The `killall -9 cgroup_fj_proc` call in cgrouip_fj_common.sh looks for
me like a cleaner and there is no `wait` or similar afterwards, so I
would guess we are not facing the problem here. And I would keep
killall here.
As far as I can see, all other `cgroup_fj_proc&` calls already kill
them separately.

> I guess you're not planning to create minimal reproducer to prove the
> problem of
> left processes after killall, are you?

Sure nice idea, I can give it a try. But not within this patchset.

Thanks
Clemens