Re: [PATCH] coredump: Retry writes where appropriate

[Andi Kleen]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:06:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:09:14 +0200
> Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:02:32PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > If a program seems to be unresponsive the user could ^C, without
> > > > realizing that it was really dumping core.  Now when they are asked to
> > > > produce the core so the problem can be debugged, they can't do it.  Or,
> > > 
> > > and get their prompt back, which is probably why they are banging ^C. If
> > > they didn't want their prompt back at that point they'd still be
> > > wondering why nothing was occuring at the point it said (core dumped)
> > 
> > Maybe we need a background core dump?
> 
> You can pretty much implement that via the pipe handler if you care. Just
> buffer aggressively.
> 
> For the general case however programs assume that when wait() returns
> indicating the core dump occurred that they can immediately access the
> dump (eg bug-buddy in Gnome)

Then set a advisory lock on the dump... no seriously:

With full signal handling during dump they would probably get a lot of time
a partial dump at best, because it's common to set signals in a row. 
I agree with Paul on that that that is unfortunate at best.

Perhaps that's something that just needs a sysctl.

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/