Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 16:09:58 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: stephen farrell <stephen@farrell.org> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: linux jdk (v1.1.1-v3 and v1.1.3-pre-v1) on 2.2-STABLE/2.2.2 Message-ID: <19970730160958.07798@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <199707301349.IAA02374@phaedrus.uchicago.edu>; from stephen farrell on Jul 07, 1997 at 08:49:41AM -0500 References: <199707301349.IAA02374@phaedrus.uchicago.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 07, 1997 at 08:49:41AM -0500, stephen farrell wrote: > However, it is not 100%, because it seems susceptible to hanging. Top > says that it's in the "pause" state. Ktrace gives output > (indefinitely) like: > > http://www.farrell.org/stephen_paul/trace.html This ktrace shows that syscalls are being made to mincore(). Now, I'm admittedly not familiar with the linux emulation code, but I don't think that mincore() is a linux syscall, at least it isn't listed in the linux syscalls.master file. However, under BSD, the syscall number for mincore() is 78, while under linux, gettimeofday() == 78. gettimeofday() appears to be a more likely syscall than mincore(). It almost appears that somehow this process has 'forgotten' that it is an emulated linux process, and is calling the native BSD routines directly. Would this make any sense? I wouldn't know where to look, but maybe someone else would. :-) -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970730160958.07798>