[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120511165128.GA21511@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 18:51:28 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, suresh@...stanetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] coredump: ensure the fpu state is flushed for
proper multi-threaded core dump
On 05/10, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -1930,8 +1930,21 @@ static int coredump_wait(int exit_code, struct core_state *core_state)
> core_waiters = zap_threads(tsk, mm, core_state, exit_code);
> up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>
> - if (core_waiters > 0)
> + if (core_waiters > 0) {
> + struct core_thread *ptr;
> +
> wait_for_completion(&core_state->startup);
> + /*
> + * Wait for all the threads to become inactive, so that
> + * all the thread context (extended register state, like
> + * fpu etc) gets copied to the memory.
> + */
> + ptr = core_state->dumper.next;
> + while (ptr != NULL) {
> + wait_task_inactive(ptr->task, 0);
> + ptr = ptr->next;
> + }
> + }
OK, but this adds the unnecessary penalty if we are not going to dump
the core.
Perhaps it makes sense to create a separate helper and call it from
do_coredump() right before "retval = binfmt->core_dump(&cprm)" ?
This also increases the chance that wait_task_inactive() won't actually
wait.
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