| 1 |
On Wednesday, 7 April 2021 07:53:09 BST Michael wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday, 6 April 2021 23:08:17 BST Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hello list, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I've just started an emerge -e world to run overnight, and I realised I'd |
| 6 |
> > forgotten to mount /boot (for intel-microcode), so I hit CTRL-C to abort. |
| 7 |
> > It took several dozen attempts, because pre-merge checks were in |
| 8 |
> > progress. It seems that this operation doesn't pass the interrupt up the |
| 9 |
> > calling chain, as other operations do. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Should I report a bug? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I have noticed the same when I pause a compilation, especially on big |
| 14 |
> packages with a high number of make jobs. I always took this to mean the |
| 15 |
> CPU thread pipes were full and until they are processed the pause |
| 16 |
> instruction has to wait for its turn. Slower PCs take longer time and |
| 17 |
> since I'm not running an RT kernel for emerge, I never thought of it as a |
| 18 |
> bug. However, if more learned contributors can explain this as a bug, I'll |
| 19 |
> be happy to learn something new. |
| 20 |
> :-) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That doesn't sound like the same thing. I'm aborting, not suspending. How do |
| 23 |
you do that, anyway? CTRL-S/Q? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The problem is that in every atomic process but this one, interrupting it |
| 26 |
causes the calling function to be aborted in turn, and so on up and out. A bit |
| 27 |
like popping things off a stack until it's empty. In the case of pre-merge |
| 28 |
checks, that doesn't happen; the next check is started regardless. That's a |
| 29 |
lot of key stabs in a large emerge task. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Peter. |
Archives