Trying the patch now … but what do you mean by using 'SIGSTOP'? I generally do
a 'kill -HUP' then when that doesn't work 'kill -9' … should Iuse -STOP instead
of 9?
On 2013-02-15, at 5:44 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> I think this is the right idea, but in HEAD with the sigdeferstop() changes
> it
> should just check for TDF_SBDRY instead of adding a new parameter. I think
> checking for TDF_SBDRY will work even in 9 (and will make the patch smaller).
>
> Also, I think this is only needed for stop signals. Other suspend requests
> will eventually resume the thread, it is only stop signals that can cause the
> thread to get stuck indefinitely (since it depends on the user sending
> SIGCONT).
>
> Marc, are you using SIGSTOP?
>
> Index: kern_thread.c
> ===================================================================
> --- kern_thread.c (revision 246122)
> +++ kern_thread.c (working copy)
> @@ -795,6 +795,17 @@ thread_suspend_check(int return_instead)
> return (ERESTART);
>
> /*
> + * Ignore suspend requests for stop signals if they
> + * are deferred.
> + */
> + if (P_SHOULDSTOP(p) == P_STOPPED_SIG &&
> + td->td_flags & TDF_SBDRY) {
> + KASSERT(return_instead,
> + ("TDF_SBDRY set for unsafe thread_suspend_check"));
> + return (0);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> * If the process is waiting for us to exit,
> * this thread should just suicide.
> * Assumes that P_SINGLE_EXIT implies P_STOPPED_SINGLE.
>
> --
> John Baldwin
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
