From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 30 11:51:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79BA37B400 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:51:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 42BCA5341; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:51:22 +0100 (CET) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Julian Elischer Cc: Doug White , Sheldon Hearn , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KSE milestone 3 reached. References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 30 Jan 2002 20:51:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 33 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Julian Elischer writes: > The current debug code seems to call psignal to deliver STOP signals in > order to suspend the process, and the stuff SEF did actually makes teh > processes call msleep(). There are three different debugging interfaces in the kernel: ktrace(2), ptrace(2) and procfs(5). Only procfs(5) (which is used by truss(1) et al.) uses msleep(9); ptrace(2) (which is POSIX, and is what gdb(1) uses) uses psignal(9). The procfs(5) junk is going away as soon as I've finished my ptrace(2)-based version of truss(1), so don't worry about it. > For example: do you want all teh other threads to be suspended, or to be > running? Do you want the UTS to be suspended as well? As far as ptrace(2) is concerned, I think I want all threads to be suspended; ptrace(2) doesn't really support the concept of threads. Our current version of gdb(1) doesn't support threads either (AFAIK), and I don't know if (or how) newer versions of gdb(1) do; we'll cross that bridge when we get there. > I have not completed this work yet.. > but am wondering if you have any violent arguments about what I'm doing.. Not really. It just has to work *somehow*, and I don't really have any opinion on precisely how. The one request i have is that debugging single-threaded processes should work the way it used to (i.e. ptrace(2) should behave the same with single-threaded processes under KSE as it did pre-KSE) DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message