On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 03:00:11PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Naoya Horiguchi > <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Could you take a look? > > It looks good - and should be a workable API for > application writers to use. > > > @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ PR_MCE_KILL > > PR_MCE_KILL_EARLY: Early kill > > PR_MCE_KILL_LATE: Late kill > > PR_MCE_KILL_DEFAULT: Use system global default > > + Note that if you want to have a dedicated thread which handles > > + the SIGBUS(BUS_MCEERR_AO) on behalf of the process, you should > > + call prctl() on the thread. Otherwise, the SIGBUS is sent to > > + the main thread. > > Perhaps be more explicit here that the user should call > prctl(PR_MCE_KILL_EARLY) on the designated thread > to get this behavior? OK. > The user could also mark more than > one thread in this way - in which case the kernel will pick > the first one it sees (is that oldest, or newest?) that is marked. > Not sure if this would ever be useful unless you want to pass > responsibility around in an application that is dynamically > creating and removing threads. I'm not sure which is better to send signal to first-found marked thread or to all marked threads. If we have a good reason to do the latter, I'm ok about it. Any idea? > > > + if (t->flags & PF_MCE_PROCESS && t->flags & PF_MCE_EARLY) > > This is correct - but made me twitch to add extra brackets: > > if ((t->flags & PF_MCE_PROCESS) && (t->flags & PF_MCE_EARLY)) OK, I'll take this. Thanks, Naoya Horiguchi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>