On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:38:58AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:58:46PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c > > @@ -436,6 +436,20 @@ static void dataplane_quiesce(void) > > (jiffies - start)); > > dump_stack(); > > } > > + > > + /* > > + * Kill the process if it violates STRICT mode. Note that this > > + * code also results in killing the task if a kernel bug causes an > > + * irq to be delivered to this core. > > + */ > > + if ((task->dataplane_flags & (PR_DATAPLANE_STRICT|PR_DATAPLANE_PRCTL)) > > + == PR_DATAPLANE_STRICT) { > > + pr_warn("Dataplane STRICT mode violated; process killed.\n"); > > + dump_stack(); > > + task->dataplane_flags &= ~PR_DATAPLANE_QUIESCE; > > + local_irq_enable(); > > + do_group_exit(SIGKILL); > > + } > > } > > So while I'm all for hard fails like this, can we not provide a wee bit > more information in the siginfo ? And maybe use a slightly less fatal > signal, such that userspace can actually catch it and dump state in > debug modes? Agreed, a bit more debug state would be helpful. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html