Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760148Ab1EORPl (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2011 13:15:41 -0400 Received: from vps.jankratochvil.net ([46.28.109.124]:36061 "EHLO host1.jankratochvil.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752020Ab1EORPl (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2011 13:15:41 -0400 Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 19:15:12 +0200 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tejun Heo Cc: oleg@redhat.com, vda.linux@googlemail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, indan@nul.nu Subject: Re: PTRACE_SEIZE should not stop [Re: [PATCH 02/11] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE] Message-ID: <20110515171512.GA24047@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <1304869745-1073-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1304869745-1073-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20110515155602.GD31855@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110515162630.GG23665@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110515162630.GG23665@htj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1552 Lines: 39 On Sun, 15 May 2011 18:26:30 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > the code to SEIZE and establish initial state would be simple. In normal case yes; but one needs to handle all the corner cases when the first signal is not INTERRUPT; which one usually does not handle as during development (=in normal cases) it is always INTERRUPT. Such thing is even difficult to test in QA testcases as in some cases one just cannot reproduce the (in current case) non-SIGSTOP signal arriving as first one. > How long does it take to attach to / detach from 10000+ threads? If > you don't do it serially, it shouldn't take that long. It is not (such) a problem it takes time. It is a problem it stops the tracee for a moment which completely changes the tracee's racy behavior one tries to debug. > You can tell them apart from userland and it doesn't matter which order or > how many times INTERRUPT occurs. I must know in which order they come to know when the tracee is still stopped and I collect the signals to be displayed to the user and at which moment there are no more signals in the queue and I start waiting on the debuggee which started running. Otherwise I can workaround it by various waitpid(NOHANG)s but it is better if the ordering and when INTERRUPT is / is not reported is well defined. Thanks, Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/