Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 22:42:52 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r350005 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <20190731194252.GO2731@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <46c7a7bc-29ec-6176-0ede-96ac91984589@FreeBSD.org> References: <201907151918.x6FJIPFo077975@repo.freebsd.org> <d281e1dc-1931-20a5-9f41-7c1f66d4f667@FreeBSD.org> <20190730231256.GL2731@kib.kiev.ua> <20190730232714.GM2731@kib.kiev.ua> <5d3ffe05-58f3-ea26-13ed-51cdcd1deeaa@FreeBSD.org> <20190731051452.GN2731@kib.kiev.ua> <46c7a7bc-29ec-6176-0ede-96ac91984589@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:08:39AM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 7/30/19 10:14 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > No, you should create a situation where the python process ends the endless > > loop, as reported. Then, it should become killable by 9 with the first > > chunk only applied. > > > > I don't have an easy way to test that. kill -9 inside the loop didn't > work. Once the loop ended the process was done; it is very short lived > and the calling code is buried in Python I think. With only the umtxq_check_susp() chunk applied, you would wait for python to start looping, then verify that kill -9 works. Anyway, I believe that the change is correct, and put the review at https://reviews.freebsd.org/D21124. I will commit after it get some sanity checking by mentioned people.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190731194252.GO2731>