On 04/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:19:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > That is also the reason I couldn't do wait_task_inactive(task, 0) > > > > Ah, I din't notice this patch uses wait_task_inactive(child, 0), > > I think it should do wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED). > > Shouldn't we then switch wait_task_inactive() so have & matching instead > of the current ==.
Sorry, I don't understand the context... As long as ptrace_freeze_traced() sets __state == __TASK_TRACED (as it currently does) wait_task_inactive(__TASK_TRACED) is what we need ? After we change it to use JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL and not abuse __state, ptrace_attach() should use wait_task_inactive(TASK_TRACED), but this depends on what exactly we are going to do... Oleg. _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
