From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f45.google.com (mail-wr1-f45.google.com [209.85.221.45]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D60AA3858D1E for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 18:19:01 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D60AA3858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wr1-f45.google.com with SMTP id q9so8083453wrd.8 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:19:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Da7nw18/C9wd8VgyszB2koOW+ebcIG+vcpWu++5tf2k=; b=ZXksvwaF+yf3NdEZPUayrYqWAYnFXtQ02NJ/H10jMUKQMB1O3RjpHe24Uy4O8jdWcR ZhL+6UojkLfJmdwqE3Rb21tFyg1cZz++jGvmTlvVrSs5MruY6c8Zys9OKZSEcCMY8Cfb a6tSN2/jB1mWui3yBOP8RQBXIhG1OWOK8+BZW03uUhd4CJ4Pl81Io1RJrXzRq6WDv8w2 WQe8e8eZ1c9wZylwAT0h3LWAPMDKFCpvjg/fTzRF74V0GLeWUidvtQN+5eZBwwqNN3D8 UmDnRuTfO2tcJOm+thmAivLC/6TzyU8xkIkkSrKbVqtKFPctl/XbIIBt+0rn8jVfyMig JzRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8KihGsHnrTxcTg9pc4yNttSob4xNEX32RljuxDdrTcASj4c/6X hlKNVLcP3Y5DKi7lnNc6FAmlRbfGmFg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1uXbJxzBgsW9088oQPY/QaQ6LrNPHTBQkidl6kd5X2nFkdKTfFenn6bYcsn1LYt2bNP9Ll9Zw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4c8d:0:b0:21d:75cd:5ae4 with SMTP id z13-20020a5d4c8d000000b0021d75cd5ae4mr18722316wrs.510.1657563539354; Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f924:2600:209d:85e2:409e:8726? ([2001:8a0:f924:2600:209d:85e2:409e:8726]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n20-20020a05600c4f9400b0039c5ab7167dsm10785923wmq.48.2022.07.11.11.18.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/25] Don't resume new threads if scheduler-locking is in effect To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20220620225419.382221-1-pedro@palves.net> <20220620225419.382221-20-pedro@palves.net> <83a6a6l1fk.fsf@gnu.org> <72ce23b7-6e3c-b867-6d96-9df93fba5cfb@palves.net> <83mtdfzma7.fsf@gnu.org> <83h73nzk59.fsf@gnu.org> <891ff735-3153-787e-cd6c-621180bf341b@palves.net> <83edyrzisp.fsf@gnu.org> <65b0807a-67b2-04a0-c82e-09209d8fc176@palves.net> <834jznzgfw.fsf@gnu.org> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <335857f3-f319-0bca-a964-c31a3f5ab449@palves.net> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 19:18:56 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <834jznzgfw.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN, FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 18:19:04 -0000 On 2022-07-11 6:50 p.m., Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> From: Pedro Alves >> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 18:48:19 +0100 >> >>> But that is too far: it comes after you tell how the replay mode >>> behaves, which is a separate issue. So if you want to say it once for >>> both ON and STEP values, I suggest to say something like >>> >>> Both the @code{on} and @code{step} settings hold stopped any new >>> threads created by the resumed thread. >>> >>> before you describe how the rep[lay mode behaves. >>> >> >> I don't see it as a separate issue. The last sentence just before mine says: >> >> "The @code{replay} mode behaves like @code{off} in record mode and like >> @code{on} in replay mode." >> >> I.e., the scheduler is locked in replay mode. This is another case of >> scheduler-locking being in effect. > > Fine, but is something wrong with the text I proposed? > Yes, you said to put it before the description of how the replay mode behaves, and your text implies the change only affects "on" and "step", while it affects "replay" as well. As I said, the change affects all cases of actually locking the scheduler, so it is not appropriate to single out just some modes.