* [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes
@ 2009-05-15 7:04 Gui Xiaohua
2009-05-15 8:41 ` Subrata Modak
2009-05-15 13:45 ` Serge E. Hallyn
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Gui Xiaohua @ 2009-05-15 7:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp-list
The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process,
if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send
the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process.
I cann't make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute
sigtimedwait() with 100 percent, and i try my best.
Signed-off-by: Gui Xiaohua <guixh@cn.fujitsu.com>
--- testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12-old.c 2009-05-14 17:00:20.000000000 +0800
+++ testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c 2009-05-15 15:15:22.000000000 +0800
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ int child_fn(void *arg)
}
/* Set timeout for sigtimedwait */
- timeout.tv_sec = 3;
+ timeout.tv_sec = 10;
timeout.tv_nsec = 0;
/* Set mask to wait for SIGUSR1 signal */
@@ -182,6 +182,9 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
cleanup();
}
+ /*Try best to make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute sigtimedwait*/
+ sleep(5);
+
/* Send SIGUSR1 to container init */
if (kill(cpid, SIGUSR1) == -1) {
tst_resm(TBROK, "parent: kill() failed(%s).", strerror(errno));
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables
unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine
for externally facing server and web deployment.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes 2009-05-15 7:04 [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes Gui Xiaohua @ 2009-05-15 8:41 ` Subrata Modak 2009-05-15 13:45 ` Serge E. Hallyn 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Subrata Modak @ 2009-05-15 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge Hallyn; +Cc: ltp-list On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 15:04 +0800, Gui Xiaohua wrote: > The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, > if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send > the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process. > I cann't make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute > sigtimedwait() with 100 percent, and i try my best. > > Signed-off-by: Gui Xiaohua <guixh@cn.fujitsu.com> Over to Serge. Regards-- Subrata > --- testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12-old.c 2009-05-14 17:00:20.000000000 +0800 > +++ testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c 2009-05-15 15:15:22.000000000 +0800 > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ int child_fn(void *arg) > } > > /* Set timeout for sigtimedwait */ > - timeout.tv_sec = 3; > + timeout.tv_sec = 10; > timeout.tv_nsec = 0; > > /* Set mask to wait for SIGUSR1 signal */ > @@ -182,6 +182,9 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > cleanup(); > } > > + /*Try best to make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute sigtimedwait*/ > + sleep(5); > + > /* Send SIGUSR1 to container init */ > if (kill(cpid, SIGUSR1) == -1) { > tst_resm(TBROK, "parent: kill() failed(%s).", strerror(errno)); > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > for externally facing server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes 2009-05-15 7:04 [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes Gui Xiaohua 2009-05-15 8:41 ` Subrata Modak @ 2009-05-15 13:45 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-05-18 11:59 ` Subrata Modak 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-05-15 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gui Xiaohua; +Cc: ltp-list Quoting Gui Xiaohua (guixh@cn.fujitsu.com): > The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, > if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send > the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process. > I cann't make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute > sigtimedwait() with 100 percent, and i try my best. Well, in theory I suppose this could happen, but you'd have to have a pretty bad scheduler if the parent can do a strcmp(buf, "c:go") between the pipe read and signal send, while the child goes straight from pipe write to sigtimedwait. Have you seen this signal be missed? If not, then I'd rather assume things are reasonable. If you have seen this happen, then why not instead set up a SIGUSR1 handler in the child before doing the pipe write, then just sleep for 3 seconds instead of doing sigtimedwait? > Signed-off-by: Gui Xiaohua <guixh@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12-old.c 2009-05-14 17:00:20.000000000 +0800 > +++ testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c 2009-05-15 15:15:22.000000000 +0800 > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ int child_fn(void *arg) > } > > /* Set timeout for sigtimedwait */ > - timeout.tv_sec = 3; > + timeout.tv_sec = 10; > timeout.tv_nsec = 0; > > /* Set mask to wait for SIGUSR1 signal */ > @@ -182,6 +182,9 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > cleanup(); > } > > + /*Try best to make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute sigtimedwait*/ > + sleep(5); > + > /* Send SIGUSR1 to container init */ > if (kill(cpid, SIGUSR1) == -1) { > tst_resm(TBROK, "parent: kill() failed(%s).", strerror(errno)); > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > for externally facing server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes 2009-05-15 13:45 ` Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-05-18 11:59 ` Subrata Modak 2009-05-18 15:07 ` Serge E. Hallyn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Subrata Modak @ 2009-05-18 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn, Gui Xiaohua; +Cc: ltp-list On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:45 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Gui Xiaohua (guixh@cn.fujitsu.com): > > The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, > > if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send > > the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process. > > I cann't make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute > > sigtimedwait() with 100 percent, and i try my best. > > Well, in theory I suppose this could happen, but you'd have to have > a pretty bad scheduler if the parent can do a strcmp(buf, "c:go") > between the pipe read and signal send, while the child goes straight > from pipe write to sigtimedwait. > > Have you seen this signal be missed? If not, then I'd rather assume > things are reasonable. If you have seen this happen, then why not > instead set up a SIGUSR1 handler in the child before doing the pipe > write, then just sleep for 3 seconds instead of doing sigtimedwait? Thanks Serge. Gui, Are you planning any further patch(s) for this ? Regards-- Subrata > > > Signed-off-by: Gui Xiaohua <guixh@cn.fujitsu.com> > > --- testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12-old.c 2009-05-14 17:00:20.000000000 +0800 > > +++ testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c 2009-05-15 15:15:22.000000000 +0800 > > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ int child_fn(void *arg) > > } > > > > /* Set timeout for sigtimedwait */ > > - timeout.tv_sec = 3; > > + timeout.tv_sec = 10; > > timeout.tv_nsec = 0; > > > > /* Set mask to wait for SIGUSR1 signal */ > > @@ -182,6 +182,9 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > cleanup(); > > } > > > > + /*Try best to make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute sigtimedwait*/ > > + sleep(5); > > + > > /* Send SIGUSR1 to container init */ > > if (kill(cpid, SIGUSR1) == -1) { > > tst_resm(TBROK, "parent: kill() failed(%s).", strerror(errno)); > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > > for externally facing server and web deployment. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > > _______________________________________________ > > Ltp-list mailing list > > Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > for externally facing server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes 2009-05-18 11:59 ` Subrata Modak @ 2009-05-18 15:07 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-05-22 5:55 ` Wei Yongjun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-05-18 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Subrata Modak; +Cc: ltp-list Quoting Subrata Modak (subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:45 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Gui Xiaohua (guixh@cn.fujitsu.com): > > > The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, > > > if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send > > > the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process. > > > I cann't make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute > > > sigtimedwait() with 100 percent, and i try my best. > > > > Well, in theory I suppose this could happen, but you'd have to have > > a pretty bad scheduler if the parent can do a strcmp(buf, "c:go") > > between the pipe read and signal send, while the child goes straight > > from pipe write to sigtimedwait. > > > > Have you seen this signal be missed? If not, then I'd rather assume > > things are reasonable. If you have seen this happen, then why not > > instead set up a SIGUSR1 handler in the child before doing the pipe > > write, then just sleep for 3 seconds instead of doing sigtimedwait? > > Thanks Serge. Or, if I'm being unreasonable, then at least have the parent only wait for at most 1 second, and leave the child alone. Every every ltp test is going to hang for 5 seconds... But I prefer setting the signal handler ahead of time. > Gui, > > Are you planning any further patch(s) for this ? thanks, -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes 2009-05-18 15:07 ` Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-05-22 5:55 ` Wei Yongjun 2009-05-25 16:13 ` Subrata Modak 2009-05-25 22:16 ` Serge E. Hallyn 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Wei Yongjun @ 2009-05-22 5:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn; +Cc: ltp-list Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Subrata Modak (subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > >> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:45 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> >>> Quoting Gui Xiaohua (guixh@cn.fujitsu.com): >>> >>>> The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, >>>> if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send >>>> the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process. >>>> I cann't make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute >>>> sigtimedwait() with 100 percent, and i try my best. >>>> >>> Well, in theory I suppose this could happen, but you'd have to have >>> a pretty bad scheduler if the parent can do a strcmp(buf, "c:go") >>> between the pipe read and signal send, while the child goes straight >>> from pipe write to sigtimedwait. >>> >>> Have you seen this signal be missed? If not, then I'd rather assume >>> things are reasonable. If you have seen this happen, then why not >>> instead set up a SIGUSR1 handler in the child before doing the pipe >>> write, then just sleep for 3 seconds instead of doing sigtimedwait? >>> >> Thanks Serge. >> > > Or, if I'm being unreasonable, then at least have the parent only wait > for at most 1 second, and leave the child alone. Every every ltp test > is going to hang for 5 seconds... > > But I prefer setting the signal handler ahead of time. > > Sorry to relpy late. As your last advice, i change the test case, and it work will. [PATCH] fix sync problem between two processes of pidns12 test The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process. This patch rewrite child_signal_handler() to handle to SIGUSR1 and instead sigtimedwait() with sleep for 3 seconds. Signed-off-by: Gui Xiaohua <guixh@cn.fujitsu.com> --- testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c | 35 ++++++-------------------- 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) diff --git a/testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c b/testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c index f893021..9120e82 100644 --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c @@ -72,8 +72,13 @@ void cleanup() */ static void child_signal_handler(int sig, siginfo_t *si, void *unused) { - /* sigtimedwait() traps siginfo details, so this wont be called */ - tst_resm(TWARN, "cinit: control should have not reached here!"); + /* Recieved SIGUSR1. Check sender pid */ + if (si->si_pid == 0) + tst_resm(TPASS, "cinit: signalling PID (from other namespace)"\ + " is 0 as expected"); + else + tst_resm(TFAIL, "cinit: signalling PID (from other namespace)"\ + " is not 0, but %d.", si->si_pid); } /* @@ -82,9 +87,6 @@ static void child_signal_handler(int sig, siginfo_t *si, void *unused) int child_fn(void *arg) { struct sigaction sa; - sigset_t newset; - siginfo_t info; - struct timespec timeout; pid_t pid, ppid; /* Set process id and parent pid */ @@ -108,34 +110,13 @@ int child_fn(void *arg) cleanup(); } - /* Set timeout for sigtimedwait */ - timeout.tv_sec = 3; - timeout.tv_nsec = 0; - - /* Set mask to wait for SIGUSR1 signal */ - sigemptyset(&newset); - sigaddset(&newset, SIGUSR1); - /* Let parent to signal SIGUSR1 */ if (write(pipefd[1], "c:go\0", 5) != 5) { tst_resm(TBROK, "cinit: pipe is broken to write"); cleanup(); } - /* Wait for SIGUSR1 */ - if (sigtimedwait(&newset, &info, &timeout) != SIGUSR1) { - tst_resm(TBROK, "cinit: sigtimedwait() failed(%s).", - strerror(errno)); - cleanup(); - } - - /* Recieved SIGUSR1. Check sender pid */ - if (info.si_pid == 0) - tst_resm(TPASS, "cinit: signalling PID (from other namespace)"\ - " is 0 as expected"); - else - tst_resm(TFAIL, "cinit: signalling PID (from other namespace)"\ - " is not 0, but %d.", info.si_pid); + sleep(3); /* cleanup and exit */ close(pipefd[1]); -- 1.6.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes 2009-05-22 5:55 ` Wei Yongjun @ 2009-05-25 16:13 ` Subrata Modak 2009-05-25 22:17 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-05-25 22:16 ` Serge E. Hallyn 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Subrata Modak @ 2009-05-25 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn, Serge Hallyn; +Cc: ltp-list On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 13:55 +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote: > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Subrata Modak (subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > > > >> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:45 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >> > >>> Quoting Gui Xiaohua (guixh@cn.fujitsu.com): > >>> > >>>> The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, > >>>> if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send > >>>> the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process. > >>>> I cann't make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process execute > >>>> sigtimedwait() with 100 percent, and i try my best. > >>>> > >>> Well, in theory I suppose this could happen, but you'd have to have > >>> a pretty bad scheduler if the parent can do a strcmp(buf, "c:go") > >>> between the pipe read and signal send, while the child goes straight > >>> from pipe write to sigtimedwait. > >>> > >>> Have you seen this signal be missed? If not, then I'd rather assume > >>> things are reasonable. If you have seen this happen, then why not > >>> instead set up a SIGUSR1 handler in the child before doing the pipe > >>> write, then just sleep for 3 seconds instead of doing sigtimedwait? > >>> > >> Thanks Serge. > >> > > > > Or, if I'm being unreasonable, then at least have the parent only wait > > for at most 1 second, and leave the child alone. Every every ltp test > > is going to hang for 5 seconds... > > > > But I prefer setting the signal handler ahead of time. > > > > > Sorry to relpy late. > > As your last advice, i change the test case, and it work will. > > [PATCH] fix sync problem between two processes of pidns12 test > > The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, > if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send > the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process. > > This patch rewrite child_signal_handler() to handle to SIGUSR1 and > instead sigtimedwait() with sleep for 3 seconds. > > Signed-off-by: Gui Xiaohua <guixh@cn.fujitsu.com> Serge, Your view on this new solution ? Regards-- Subrata > --- > testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c | 35 ++++++-------------------- > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c b/testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c > index f893021..9120e82 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c > +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/pidns/pidns12.c > @@ -72,8 +72,13 @@ void cleanup() > */ > static void child_signal_handler(int sig, siginfo_t *si, void *unused) > { > - /* sigtimedwait() traps siginfo details, so this wont be called */ > - tst_resm(TWARN, "cinit: control should have not reached here!"); > + /* Recieved SIGUSR1. Check sender pid */ > + if (si->si_pid == 0) > + tst_resm(TPASS, "cinit: signalling PID (from other namespace)"\ > + " is 0 as expected"); > + else > + tst_resm(TFAIL, "cinit: signalling PID (from other namespace)"\ > + " is not 0, but %d.", si->si_pid); > } > > /* > @@ -82,9 +87,6 @@ static void child_signal_handler(int sig, siginfo_t *si, void *unused) > int child_fn(void *arg) > { > struct sigaction sa; > - sigset_t newset; > - siginfo_t info; > - struct timespec timeout; > pid_t pid, ppid; > > /* Set process id and parent pid */ > @@ -108,34 +110,13 @@ int child_fn(void *arg) > cleanup(); > } > > - /* Set timeout for sigtimedwait */ > - timeout.tv_sec = 3; > - timeout.tv_nsec = 0; > - > - /* Set mask to wait for SIGUSR1 signal */ > - sigemptyset(&newset); > - sigaddset(&newset, SIGUSR1); > - > /* Let parent to signal SIGUSR1 */ > if (write(pipefd[1], "c:go\0", 5) != 5) { > tst_resm(TBROK, "cinit: pipe is broken to write"); > cleanup(); > } > > - /* Wait for SIGUSR1 */ > - if (sigtimedwait(&newset, &info, &timeout) != SIGUSR1) { > - tst_resm(TBROK, "cinit: sigtimedwait() failed(%s).", > - strerror(errno)); > - cleanup(); > - } > - > - /* Recieved SIGUSR1. Check sender pid */ > - if (info.si_pid == 0) > - tst_resm(TPASS, "cinit: signalling PID (from other namespace)"\ > - " is 0 as expected"); > - else > - tst_resm(TFAIL, "cinit: signalling PID (from other namespace)"\ > - " is not 0, but %d.", info.si_pid); > + sleep(3); > > /* cleanup and exit */ > close(pipefd[1]); ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes 2009-05-25 16:13 ` Subrata Modak @ 2009-05-25 22:17 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-05-26 12:22 ` Subrata Modak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-05-25 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Subrata Modak; +Cc: ltp-list, Serge Hallyn Quoting Subrata Modak (subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > > Signed-off-by: Gui Xiaohua <guixh@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Serge, > > Your view on this new solution ? Oops, i forgot to officially note: Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> thanks, -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes 2009-05-25 22:17 ` Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-05-26 12:22 ` Subrata Modak 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Subrata Modak @ 2009-05-26 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn, Wei Yongjun; +Cc: ltp-list, Serge Hallyn On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 17:17 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Subrata Modak (subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > > > Signed-off-by: Gui Xiaohua <guixh@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > Serge, > > > > Your view on this new solution ? > > Oops, i forgot to officially note: > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> Thanks to both of you. Regards-- Subrata > > thanks, > -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes 2009-05-22 5:55 ` Wei Yongjun 2009-05-25 16:13 ` Subrata Modak @ 2009-05-25 22:16 ` Serge E. Hallyn 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-05-25 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wei Yongjun; +Cc: ltp-list Quoting Wei Yongjun (yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com): > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> Quoting Subrata Modak (subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com): >> >>> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:45 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >>>> Quoting Gui Xiaohua (guixh@cn.fujitsu.com): >>>> >>>>> The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, >>>>> if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process >>>>> send the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from >>>>> parent-process. >>>>> I cann't make sure the SIGUSR1 be sended after child-process >>>>> execute sigtimedwait() with 100 percent, and i try my best. >>>>> >>>> Well, in theory I suppose this could happen, but you'd have to have >>>> a pretty bad scheduler if the parent can do a strcmp(buf, "c:go") >>>> between the pipe read and signal send, while the child goes straight >>>> from pipe write to sigtimedwait. >>>> >>>> Have you seen this signal be missed? If not, then I'd rather assume >>>> things are reasonable. If you have seen this happen, then why not >>>> instead set up a SIGUSR1 handler in the child before doing the pipe >>>> write, then just sleep for 3 seconds instead of doing sigtimedwait? >>>> >>> Thanks Serge. >>> >> >> Or, if I'm being unreasonable, then at least have the parent only wait >> for at most 1 second, and leave the child alone. Every every ltp test >> is going to hang for 5 seconds... >> >> But I prefer setting the signal handler ahead of time. >> >> > Sorry to relpy late. > > As your last advice, i change the test case, and it work will. > > [PATCH] fix sync problem between two processes of pidns12 test > > The child-process wait SIGUSR1 which would be sended by parent-process, > if the child-process execute sigtimedwait() after parent-process send > the signal, it would never receive the SIGUSR1 from parent-process. > > This patch rewrite child_signal_handler() to handle to SIGUSR1 and > instead sigtimedwait() with sleep for 3 seconds. Thank you, this looks right. I assume the reason it wasn't originally done this way, was out of a concern that the TPASS/TFAIL out of signal handler wouldn't count... -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-05-26 14:22 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-05-15 7:04 [LTP] [PATCH] Synchronization between two processes Gui Xiaohua 2009-05-15 8:41 ` Subrata Modak 2009-05-15 13:45 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-05-18 11:59 ` Subrata Modak 2009-05-18 15:07 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-05-22 5:55 ` Wei Yongjun 2009-05-25 16:13 ` Subrata Modak 2009-05-25 22:17 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-05-26 12:22 ` Subrata Modak 2009-05-25 22:16 ` Serge E. Hallyn
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox