[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZfGy9ggOIvtr_-cd@x1>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:06:46 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] perf: Make SIGTRAP and __perf_pending_irq() work
on RT.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 02:46:45PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-03-13 10:28:41 [-0300], Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > One part I don't get: did you let it run or did you kill it?
> >
> > If I let them run they will finish and exit, no exec_child remains.
> >
> > If I instead try to stop the loop that goes on forking the 100 of them,
> > then the exec_child remain spinning.
>
> Okay. So that problem only exists if you intervene. And you can
> reproduce this odd behaviour with my patches but not without them,
> right?
See the next message, I managed to reproduce that behaviour in a non-RT
kernel as well.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists