On Wed, May 05 2021 at 23:57, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, May 05 2021 at 15:24, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/5/21 5:03 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>>> As io_threads are fully set up USER threads it's clearer to
>>> separate the code path from the KTHREAD logic.
>>>
>>> The only remaining difference to user space threads is that
>>> io_threads never return to user space again.
>>> Instead they loop within the given worker function.
>>>
>>> The fact that they never return to user space means they
>>> don't have an user space thread stack. In order to
>>> indicate that to tools like gdb we reset the stack and instruction
>>> pointers to 0.
>>>
>>> This allows gdb attach to user space processes using io-uring,
>>> which like means that they have io_threads, without printing worrying
>>> message like this:
>>>
>>> warning: Selected architecture i386:x86-64 is not compatible with reported target architecture i386
>>>
>>> warning: Architecture rejected target-supplied description
>>>
>>> The output will be something like this:
>>>
>>> (gdb) info threads
>>> Id Target Id Frame
>>> * 1 LWP 4863 "io_uring-cp-for" syscall () at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/syscall.S:38
>>> 2 LWP 4864 "iou-mgr-4863" 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>>> 3 LWP 4865 "iou-wrk-4863" 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>>> (gdb) thread 3
>>> [Switching to thread 3 (LWP 4865)]
>>> #0 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>>> (gdb) bt
>>> #0 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>>> Backtrace stopped: Cannot access memory at address 0x0
>>
>> I have queued this one up in the io_uring branch, also happy to drop it if
>> the x86 folks want to take it instead. Let me know!
>
> I have no objections, but heck what's the rush here?
>
> Waiting a day for the x86 people to respond it not too much asked for
> right?
That said, the proper subject line would be:
x86/process: Setup io_threads ....
Aside of that:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
