This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] lin-lwp.c prelim changes for new thread model
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 12:39:14 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC] lin-lwp.c prelim changes for new thread model
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <3E1A14C5.77F6C2DF@redhat.com> <20030107033133.GB5132@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:44:05PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > The up and coming kernel (2.4.20, I believe?) and the next glibc (2.3.1)
> > both bring some drastic changes to linux threads. The current gdb thread
> > debugging code will not handle them as is.
> > This is a smallish change that I propose as a preliminary step;
> > it'll get things partly working in the new world, without breaking
> > them in the old.
> > Here's the rationalle.
> > In the old/current model, when one thread gets a signal (such as TRAP),
> > we (gdb) have to call kill (SIGSTOP, pid) for every other thread
> > (excepting the event thread), and then do a waitpid on each of them.
> > In the new model, when one thread gets a signal, we only have to
> > send kill(SIGSTOP, pid) to _one_ thread, and the kernel will then
> > propagate the signal to all of them (_including_ the one that has
> > already stopped with eg. SIGTRAP). We must still do a waitpid on
> > each and every thread -- however, that now _includes_ the one that
> > stopped in the first place (and which we've already done one waitpid on).
> > I know, you're thinking "wasn't this supposed to get simpler?"
> > The minimal change I propose below is as follows:
> > When we send kill(SIGSTOP) to all the threads, we now include
> > the event thread, where previously we had made him a special case.
> > That way, whether in the new model or the old one, we can now do
> > a waitpid on every thread including the event thread.
> > What do you think?
> To be honest, I don't like this very much. You're hurting performance
> in the current case (whose performance is already quite bad enough,
> thank you!). I don't think that the additional complexity/waiting is
Well, your feedback is high on the priority list.
> If we detect CLONE_THREAD (how do we detect CLONE_THREAD?)
That I don't know. Because I don't know, and because CLONE_THREAD
represents an entirely new approach, I was looking for something
that I could get working quickly on both models, using mostly
the existing code and approach.
> we can mark
> the new LWP as having a pending stop based on that. Or, Roland has a
> kernel patch that's stewing in my mailbox which provides a better way
> to handle this entire thing than sending SIGSTOP. I don't think he
> ever tested it, and I know I haven't had time, but let me know if you
> want a copy.
I'm not as kernel-hackerish as you. I'll discuss with Roland
whether he thinks he can get that patch into the kernel in the
near term (and how it will help).