[LTP] [PATCH] memcg_lib/memcg_process: Better synchronization of signal USR1

[Joerg Vehlow]

Hi,
>>
>> So the problem is that sometimes the program has not finished handling
>> the first signal and we are sending another, right?
>>
>> I guess that the proper solution would be avoding the signals in the
>> first place. I guess that we can estabilish two-way communication with
>> fifos, which would also mean that we would get notified as fast as the
>> child dies as well.
> Correct. Using fifos is probably a viable solution, but it would 
> require library work,
> because otherwise the overhead is way too big.
> Another thing I can think of is extending tst_checkpoint wait to also 
> watch a process
> and stop waiting, if that process dies. This would be the simplest way 
> to get good
> synchronization and get rid of the sleep.
>
When thinking about this yesterday, I had another idea to fix it without 
much work:
For the test, that expects the process to terminate, just don't call 
tst_checkpoint at
all. We know it will fail there. Would this be acceptable for you?

Jörg