Sam Lawrance wrote: >On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 09:43 +0800, David Xu wrote: > > >>Sam Lawrance wrote: >> >> >> >>>>How-To-Repeat: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Run a shell somewhere (first). Su or run another shell or similar (second). >>>Wait until the first shell has swapped out (might require running some other >>>memory hogs). Exit the second shell. Notice that the second shell takes a >>>long time to exit. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>This reminds me that it is another swappable kernel stack problem, if we >>don't have >>it, we even needn't TDP_WAKEPROC0 hack, interesting. :) >> >> > >Do I understand this correctly: When a process is swapped back in, the >kernel stack is faulted in immediately and user space is faulted in as >needed? > >And without swappable kernel stack, no extra action is required because >the kernel stack is already in, and user space will be faulted in as >usual? > > > Yes, you are right.Received on Sun Mar 06 2005 - 02:21:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:29 UTC