[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111102113030.GE22462@linux-mips.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:30:31 +0000
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To: trisha yad <trisha1march@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, mhocko@...e.cz,
rientjes@...gle.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Issue with core dump
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 12:03:39PM +0530, trisha yad wrote:
> Thanks all for your answer.
>
> In loaded embedded system the time at with code hit do_user_fault()
> and core_dump_wait() is bit
> high, I check on my system it took 2.7 sec. so it is very much
> possible that core dump is not correct.
> It contain global value updated.
>
> So is it possible at time of send_signal() we can stop modification of
> faulty thread memory ?
On existing hardware it is impossible to take a consistent snapshot of a
multi-threaded application at the time of one thread faulting.
A software simulator can handle this sort of race condition but of course
this approach has other disadvantages.
Ralf
--
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