[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903180742320.3082@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Gábor Melis <mega@...es.hu>
cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RT signal queue overflow (Was: Q: SEGSEGV && uc_mcontext->ip
(Was: Signal delivery order))
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Gábor Melis wrote:
>
> It was just a month or so ago when I finally made to change to use a
> non-real-time signal for signalling stop-for-gc.
Ahh, and that is when you noticed the issue with SIGSEGV?
One thing you might try is to still use a non-real-time signal, but simply
depend on the fact that signals are basically peeled off the signal
bitmask in a signal number order (with the exception that fatal signals
are handled specially).
IOW, on x86, just about the _only_ normal user-generated signal that can
happen before SIGSEGV is SIGUSR1, because SIGSEGV is 11, and SIGUSR1 is
10.
If you were to use SIGUSR2 (signal #12) you'd probably never see this.
Of course, there are other signals with numbers < 11, but they are
generally meant for other synchronous traps (ie signals like
SIGTRAP/AIGABRT/SIGFPE/SIGBUS), or for killing the process (signals
SIGHUP/SIGINT/SIGQUIT).
So maybe you'd be happy with just picking another signal? It's not a
_pretty_ solution, but it should work across most kernel versions.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists