On Thu, 02 May 2019, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
Reported-by: Omar Kilani
Do we actually know if this was the issue Omar was hitting?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> Eric,
> Can you please help test this?
Nope, that was _really_ badly whitespace-damaged.
(C'mon, it's not like you're new to this)
Eric,
Can you please help test this?
If this solves your problem, I can post the fix.
Thanks,
- Deepa
-8<---
Subject: [PATCH] signal: Adjust error codes according to restore_user_sigmask()
For all the syscalls that receive a sigmask from the userland,
the user sigmask is to be in eff
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:48 PM Eric Wong wrote:
>
> Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > So here is my analysis:
>
>
>
> > So the 854a6ed56839a40f6 seems to be better than the original code in
> > that it detects the signal.
>
> OTOH, does matter to anybody that a signal is detected slightly
> sooner than
Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> So here is my analysis:
> So the 854a6ed56839a40f6 seems to be better than the original code in
> that it detects the signal.
OTOH, does matter to anybody that a signal is detected slightly
sooner than it would've been, otherwise?
> But, the problem is that it doesn't
Thanks for trying the fix.
So here is my analysis:
Let's start with epoll_pwait:
ep_poll() is what checks for signal_pending() and is responsible for
setting errno to -EINTR when there is a signal.
So if a signal is received after ep_poll(), it is never noticed by the
syscall during execution.
Eric Wong wrote:
> (didn't test AIO, but everything else seems good)
"seems" != "is"
Now that I understand the fix for epoll, the fs/select.c changes
would hit the same problem and not return -EINTR when it should.
I'll let you guys decide how to fix this, but there's definitely
a problem when
Eric Wong wrote:
> Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > I'm not sure what the hang in the userspace is about. Is it because
> > the syscall did not return an error or the particular signal was
> > blocked etc.
>
> Uh, ok; that's less comforting.
Nevermind, I think I understand everything, now. epoll_pwai
Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> I was also not able to reproduce this.
> Arnd and I were talking about this today morning. Here is something
> Arnd noticed:
>
> If there was a signal after do_epoll_wait(), we never were not
> entering the if (err = -EINTR) at all before.
I'm not sure which `if' statemen
I was also not able to reproduce this.
Arnd and I were talking about this today morning. Here is something
Arnd noticed:
If there was a signal after do_epoll_wait(), we never were not
entering the if (err = -EINTR) at all before. But, now we do.
We could try with the below patch:
diff --git a/fs/
Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Eric Wong wrote:
>
> > Just running one test won't trigger since it needs a busy
> > machine; but:
> >
> > make test/mgmt_auto_adjust.log
> > (and "rm make test/mgmt_auto_adjust.log" if you want to rerun)
>
> fyi no luck reproducing on both
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Eric Wong wrote:
Just running one test won't trigger since it needs a busy
machine; but:
make test/mgmt_auto_adjust.log
(and "rm make test/mgmt_auto_adjust.log" if you want to rerun)
fyi no luck reproducing on both either a large (280) or small (4 cpu)
mac
Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> I tried to replicate the failure on qemu.
> I do not see the failure with N=32.
> Does it work for N < 32?
Depends on number of cores you have; I have 4 cores, 8 threads
with HT; so I needed to have a lot of load on the machine to get
it to fail (it takes about 1 minute).
I tried to replicate the failure on qemu.
I do not see the failure with N=32.
Does it work for N < 32?
Does any other signal work?
Are there any other architectures that fail?
Could you help me figure out how to run just the one test that is failing?
-Deepa
Eric Wong wrote:
> Omar Kilani wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I’m still trying to piece together a reproducible test that triggers
> > this, but I wanted to post in case someone goes “hmmm... change X
> > might have done this”.
>
> Maybe Davidlohr knows, since he's responsible for most of the
> e
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, Eric Wong wrote:
Omar Kilani wrote:
Hi there,
I???m still trying to piece together a reproducible test that triggers
this, but I wanted to post in case someone goes ???hmmm... change X
might have done this???.
Maybe Davidloh
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, Eric Wong wrote:
Omar Kilani wrote:
Hi there,
I???m still trying to piece together a reproducible test that triggers
this, but I wanted to post in case someone goes ???hmmm... change X
might have done this???.
Maybe Davidlohr knows, since he's responsible for most of th
Omar Kilani wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I’m still trying to piece together a reproducible test that triggers
> this, but I wanted to post in case someone goes “hmmm... change X
> might have done this”.
Maybe Davidlohr knows, since he's responsible for most of the
epoll changes in 5.0.
> Basically, s
Hi there,
I’m still trying to piece together a reproducible test that triggers
this, but I wanted to post in case someone goes “hmmm... change X
might have done this”.
Basically, something’s broken (or at least, has changed enough to
cause problems in user space) in epoll since 5.0. It’s still br
19 matches
Mail list logo
