Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1 | From | Bernd Edlinger <> | Date | Thu, 9 Apr 2020 22:36:24 +0200 |
| |
On 4/9/20 10:04 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:57 PM Bernd Edlinger > <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> wrote: >> >> The use case where this may happen with strace >> when you call strace with lots of -p <pid> arguments, >> and one of them is a bomb. strace stuck. > > Yeah, so from a convenience angle I do agree that it would be nicer to > just not count dead threads. > > You can test that by just moving the > > /* Don't bother with already dead threads */ > if (t->exit_state) > continue; > > test in zap_other_threads() to above the > > count++; > > line instead. > > NOTE! That is *NOT* the correct true fix. I'm just suggesting that you
Eric, I think he means you, I am too busy with other work ;-) right now.
> try if it fixes that particular test-case (I did not try it myself - > because .. lazy) > > If Oleg agrees that we could take the approach that we can share a > signal struct with dead threads, we'd also need to change the > accounting to do that notify_count not when the signal struct is > unlinked, but when exit_state is first set. > > I'm not convinced that's the right solution, but I do agree that it's > annoying how easily strace can get stuck, since one of the main uses > for strace is for debugging nasty situations. > > Linus >
| |