Am 26.03.21 um 15:38 schrieb Jens Axboe: > On 3/26/21 7:59 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 3/26/21 7:54 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> The KILL after STOP deadlock still exists. >>> >>> In which tree? Sounds like you're still on the old one with that >>> incremental you sent, which wasn't complete. >>> >>>> Does io_wq_manager() exits without cleaning up on SIGKILL? >>> >>> No, it should kill up in all cases. I'll try your stop + kill, I just >>> tested both of them separately and didn't observe anything. I also ran >>> your io_uring-cp example (and found a bug in the example, fixed and >>> pushed), fwiw. >> >> I can reproduce this one! I'll take a closer look. > > OK, that one is actually pretty straight forward - we rely on cleaning > up on exit, but for fatal cases, get_signal() will call do_exit() for us > and never return. So we might need a special case in there to deal with > that, or some other way of ensuring that fatal signal gets processed > correctly for IO threads. And if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) doesn't prevent get_signal() from being called? metze
