Re: pthreads+bproc (was Re: [BProc] Re: bpslave dies)

[<er...@he...>]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:47:51PM -0400, Nicholas Henke wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:18:35 -0600
> er...@he... wrote:
> 
> 
> > Signal stuff *should* be local to the node and basically the same as
> > w/o BProc for pthreads stuff.  If it relies on process group stuff
> > that might not be true but I don't *think* it should be doing that.
> 
> Ok -- I just thought it was really weird that bpslave was getting
> SIGSTOP. It seems to me that getting that signal might be causing the
> rest of the problems.
> Is there any reason that bpslave would get SIGSTOP -- does the OS send
> that in a strange condition ?

Usually the only reason you would get a sigstop from the OS is
terminal related and then it should be TSTP.

That strace is pretty strange.  There's a lot of rt_sigaction w/
SIGPIPE but the slave daemon code only does that once with SIGPIPE and
it sets it to SIG_IGN.  Anyway, this might have something to do with
the 'exit signal' on a process.  That's about the only way I can think
to signal the slave daemon...

- Erik