Jonathan Lim wrote:
> On Mon Aug 20 20:44:13 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Jonathan Lim wrote:
>>> taskstats.ac_exitcode is assigned to task_struct.exit_code in
>>> bacct_add_tsk() through the following kernel function calls:
>>>
>>> do_exit()
>>> taskstats_exit_send()
>>> fill_pid()
>>> bacct_add_tsk()
>>>
>>> The problem is that in do_exit(), task_struct.exit_code is set to 'code'
>>> only after taskstats_exit_send() has been called. So we need to send
>>> 'code' through to bacct_add_tsk().
>> Hi, Jonathan,
>>
>> The patches look like a step in the right direction, I would suggest an
>> alternate implementation
>>
>> Why can't we assign tsk->exit_code to code earlier? Can we not move up the
>> assignment to before taskstats_exit()? Wouldn't that be much simpler?
>
> Hi Balbir,
>
> That was what I wanted to do at first, but there was some concern over whether
> it would affect any of the intervening function calls. If there's no
> particular reason why the tsk->exit_code assignment is placed where it's at
> now, then yes, I would much rather move it to before taskstats_exit().
>
> I looked at the following functions involving tsk:
>
> exit_mm
> mm_release
> deactivate_mm
> exit_sem
> __exit_files
> __exit_fs
> cpuset_exit
> exit_keys
>
> and don't see anything that setting exit_code would affect. What do you
> think?
>
I think your search and analysis leads me to believe that, it might be the
correct thing to do. I would suggest we patch it that way and run a functional
test like LTP to ensure we did not break anything.
What do you think?
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
