Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:56:26 +0530 | From | "Suzuki K. Poulose" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [Patch 0/21] Non disruptive application core dump infrastructure |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:37:48 +0100 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Suzuki. > > On 12/15/2010 06:34 AM, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote: > > I'd be very glad not using the freezer if there is a neat way to > > accomplish this without the undesired side effects. Tejun's ptrace > > enhancement would still require a userland program to control > > it(gcore); something contained in the kernel would be ideal. > > Why is using gcore a bad thing? If we make ptrace avoid the implicit > SIGSTOP, the side effects of ptrace would be the same as using freezer > but with the benefit that it's properly integrated to the process > model and job control.
The advantages of the new approach are :
1) A process can trigger a core synchronously, upon an event, say a signal handler and continue from there. gcore would require a fork(), which is not safe to use from a signal handler.
2) We can seek to only the data we need
Thanks Suzuki
| |