On Fri 23-09-16 16:07:24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 23-09-16 15:21:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > This change is simply wrong no matter what.
> >
> > I've just tried to extend the existing
> >
> &
On Fri 23-09-16 15:21:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 23-09-16 12:21:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/signa
On Fri 23-09-16 11:50:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Sorry for delay, I was offline. I'll try to return to this problem next
> week, currently I can't even read this thread but at first glance the
> proposed patch(es) do not look right...
>
> On 09/21, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
On Fri 23-09-16 12:21:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig,
> > bool force)
> > if (!sig_task_ignored
On Thu 22-09-16 13:09:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-09-16 12:09:05, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:53 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 22-09-16 11:40:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > > This patch doesn't help, nor does
On Thu 22-09-16 12:09:05, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 11:53 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 22-09-16 11:40:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > This patch doesn't help, nor does the previous patch... but with both
> > > applied, all is well. Al
On Thu 22-09-16 11:40:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:36 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 22-09-16 10:01:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 22-09-16 06:15:02, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > master.today...
> > >
On Thu 22-09-16 10:01:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-09-16 06:15:02, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [...]
> > master.today...
>
> Thanks for trying to reproduce this. My tiny laptop (2 cores, 2 threads
> per core) cannot reproduce even in 10 minutes or so. I've tried to use
SIGCHLD-1].sa.sa_flags & SA_NOCLDWAIT))) {
/*
* We are exiting and our parent doesn't care. POSIX.1
And it worked out. Now I do not have any idea why the check is explicit
for SIG_IGN rather than sig_handler_ignored, maybe there is a str
