[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111007165828.GA32319@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:58:28 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 26/26] uprobes: queue signals while
thread is singlestepping.
On 10/06, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> The patch (that I sent out as part of v5 patchset) uses per task
> pending sigqueue and start queueing the signals when the task
> singlesteps. After completion of singlestep, walks thro the pending
> signals.
Yes, I see. Doesn't look very nice ;)
> But I was thinking if I should block signals instead of queueing them in
> a different sigqueue. So Idea is to block signals just before the task
> enables singlestep and unblock after task disables singlestep.
Agreed, this looks much, much better. In both cases the task is current,
it is safe to change ->blocked.
But please avoid sigprocmask(), we have set_current_blocked().
Oleg.
--
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