From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 3 10:18:34 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 3 10:18:32 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB13737B401 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id NAA11476; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:18:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:18:03 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: Peter Dufault Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Arg! Siginfo and pthreads again In-Reply-To: <200012031548.KAA61923@hda.hda.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Peter Dufault wrote: > Again I've forgotten that SIGINFO dumps the pthread info and created > several gigabytes of /tmp files: > > > rt% rm /tmp/uthread* > > /bin/rm: Argument list too long. > > I don't consider it bad form to use SIGINFO to see if processes are > still around without first installing a SIGINFO handler. Can't you use `kill -0 pid` if you just want to see if the process is around? > Am I the only one ever burnt by this? > Do other user-space thread systems handle this similarly? > Maybe an info thread can block at an info fifo in conjunction > with a "psthread" program. Now that we can accomodate more than 31 signals, we could always add a SIGTHRINFO (or something more aptly named) instead of using SIGINFO. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message