From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 9 20:46:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B5B16A4CE; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:46:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944F343D39; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:46:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i89KkaJt013470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id i89KkVeb058664; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:46:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gallatin) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16704.49447.290897.602540@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:46:31 -0400 (EDT) To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: <4140C04D.1060906@elischer.org> References: <16703.11479.679335.588170@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <16703.12410.319869.29996@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <413F55B8.50003@elischer.org> <16703.28031.454342.774229@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <413F8DBB.5040502@elischer.org> <16704.40876.708925.425911@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <4140AA2A.90605@elischer.org> <16704.45327.42494.922427@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <4140C04D.1060906@elischer.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid cc: John Baldwin cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unkillable KSE threaded proc X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:46:39 -0000 Julian Elischer writes: > > > >Maybe this would be easier to debug if I disabled preemption? > > > > > I think that this would possibly GO AWAY of you disab;ed preemption. > which would make it very hard to debug :-) > Yes and no. You initially asked me to try in -current because of some changes you'd made to the exit code. RELENG_5 (with the old exit code and no preemption) shows a different problem (proc is just not killable). If the proc was killable without preemption, that would at least show your new code is better.. Drew