On 26/03/11 23:17 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
>
> On 03/26/2011 12:06 PM, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > On 25/03/11 22:14 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/04/2011 12:29 PM, Louis Rilling wrote:
> >>> On 04/03/11 11:07 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
> >>>> On 03/03/2011 11:35 AM, Louis Rilling wrote:
> >>>>> On 03/03/11 10:38 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 03/01/2011 10:31 AM, Louis Rilling wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 28/02/11 17:10 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> So looking at the code again, we could add one condition in exit.c
> >>>>>>>> at wait_consider_task(), after the test of p->exit_state == EXIT_DEAD,
> >>>>>>>> to also test:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> inline static bool is_ghost_task(p)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> return (p->flags & (PF_EXITING|PF_RESTARTING) ==
> >>>>>>>> PF_EXITING|PF_RESTARTING) && task_detached(p)
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> if (p->flags & is_ghost_task(p))
> >>>>>>>> return 0;
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Or something along the lines (e.g. used EXIT_ZOMBIE comparison instead
> >>>>>>>> of PF_EXITING). While requiring a kernel patch, it is relatively short,
> >>>>>>>> clean and easy to review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> EXIT_ZOMBIE comparison would not optimize much imho, since p->flags must be
> >>>>> checked anyway.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nit1: I don't think that checking p->flags saves anything before calling
> >>>>> is_ghost_task().
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm.. right -
> >>>> That's a leftover from before I decided to introduce is_ghost_task()
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nit2: why would you like to check that PF_EXITING and PF_RESTARTING come
> >>>>> together? Is it to make sure that no "real" restarted thread will be skipped
> >>>>> this way?
> >>>>
> >>>> If wait() is called to get the state of stopped children, and for
> >>>> whatever reason the ghost is stopped or being ptraced (we should
> >>>> probably prevent that... but ok) - testing for the exiting/zombie
> >>>> condition is an extra safety measure: only skip this task when it
> >>>> is actually exiting.
> >>>
> >>> I don't see how a ghost task could be stopped or ptraced, since it calls
> >>> do_exit() right after becoming detached, and thus identifiable as a ghost.
> >>> Unless it gets ptraced right before calling sys_restart()? Even in that case,
> >>> it's not reapable by ptrace since it's not in stopped state. OTOH, it may still
> >>> be reaped in wait_task_continued() (see below).
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you not think it's needed ?
> >>>
> >>> Not sure. As far as I can see, other restarting (with PF_RESTARTING) and
> >>> detached tasks can only be sub-threads, and are mostly not reapable in any way
> >>> as long as PF_RESTARTING is set. They can surely be reaped neither by
> >>> wait_task_zombie(), nor by wait_task_stopped(). The only possibility I see is by
> >>> wait_task_continued(), because a previous "wakeup from stopped" has not been
> >>> consumed before the checkpoint.
> >>>
> >>> But, and I think that this is a good reason to check PF_EXITING (or
> >>> ->exit_state), if threads are skipped this way, then wait() might incorrectly
> >>> return -ECHILD instead of sleeping.
> >>>
> >>> Wait. Even with this, after ->exit_signal is set to -1, and before PF_EXITING is
> >>> set, wait_consider_task() can still consider the ghost as potentially reapable
> >>> in the future. Deadlock again.
> >>>
> >>> In fact, it's probably much saner to have something atomic, like:
> >>>
> >>> write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> >>> p->flags |= PF_EXITING;
> >>> p->exit_signal = -1;
> >>> __wake_up_parent(p, p->parent);
> >>> write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately this is not accepted by do_exit(). So two kinds of solutions:
> >>> either set a new flag à la PF_RESTART_GHOST, and only check for this flag in
> >>> wait_consider_task(),
> >>> or somewhere in do_exit() (latest in exit_notify()), have
> >>> another mean to recognize ghost tasks, and do the ->exit_signal = -1 +
> >>> __wake_up_parent() there.
> >>>
> >>> What's your opinion?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Doing it in wait_consider_task() may be a problem since we only mark
> >> a task as ghost after it has lived for a while, so wait() would have
> >> already considered it a valid child to wait for.
> >>
> >> If I had to choose, then I'd do the snippet you suggest above - and
> >> in particular where PF_EXITING is already set, which is exit_signals().
> >>
> >> Adding a means to recognize ghost tasks is simple: we ran out of
> >> task->flags, but we can add a c/r related field to hold such a flag
> >> (we already add one field to the task_struct).
> >>
> >> Do you think that will do it ?
> >
> > Yup, any way to have a flag protected by tasklist_lock would be ok. For
> > instance, use some bit near ->did_exec. IMHO of course :)
>
> Good idea.
> How about this patch:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index e42bf29..5a08d49 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1267,6 +1267,9 @@ struct task_struct {
> unsigned in_execve:1; /* Tell the LSMs that the process is doing an
> * execve */
> unsigned in_iowait:1;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT
> + unsigned ckpt_ghost:1; /* ghost task in c/r - auto-reap */
> +#endif
>
>
> /* Revert to default priority/policy when forking */
> diff --git a/kernel/checkpoint/restart.c b/kernel/checkpoint/restart.c
> index 01da67f..880d456 100644
> --- a/kernel/checkpoint/restart.c
> +++ b/kernel/checkpoint/restart.c
> @@ -971,6 +971,8 @@ static int do_ghost_task(void)
> restore_debug_error(ctx, ret);
> if (ret < 0)
> ckpt_err(ctx, ret, "ghost restart failed\n");
> + else
> + current->ckpt_ghost = 1;
>
> restore_debug_exit(ctx);
> ckpt_ctx_put(ctx);
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index b1e6a31..8bc7c9e 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -2017,6 +2017,13 @@ void exit_signals(struct task_struct *tsk)
> struct task_struct *t;
>
> if (thread_group_empty(tsk) || signal_group_exit(tsk->signal)) {
> + if (tsk->ckpt_ghost) {
> + write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> + p->flags |= PF_EXITING;
> + p->exit_signal = -1;
> + __wake_up_parent(p, p->parent);
> + write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> + }
> tsk->flags |= PF_EXITING;
> return;
This alone is not enough. I was not clear enough and did not pay enough
attention to your suggestion, I'm afraid :)
wait_consider_task() can still wait for such a child, with __WALL or __WCLONE.
So wait_consider_task() must check ->ckpt_ghost, and __wake_up_parent() must be
done when setting ->ckpt_ghost. Then PF_EXITING need no particular handling, and
all can be done in do_ghost_task().
In other words, something like this could do it (hope it's not an issue to set
->ckpt_ghost before calling restore_debug_error()):
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index e42bf29..5a08d49 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1267,6 +1267,9 @@ struct task_struct {
unsigned in_execve:1; /* Tell the LSMs that the process is doing an
* execve */
unsigned in_iowait:1;
+#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT
+ unsigned ckpt_ghost:1; /* ghost task in c/r - auto-reap */
+#endif
/* Revert to default priority/policy when forking */
diff --git a/kernel/checkpoint/restart.c b/kernel/checkpoint/restart.c
index 25e3b6d..e7b66f5 100644
--- a/kernel/checkpoint/restart.c
+++ b/kernel/checkpoint/restart.c
@@ -1307,6 +1307,17 @@ static int do_ghost_task(void)
ret = wait_event_interruptible(ctx->ghostq,
all_tasks_activated(ctx) ||
ckpt_test_error(ctx));
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto out;
+
+ write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
+ /* Tell parent not to wait for us. It may be already waiting though. */
+ current->ckpt_ghost = 1;
+ __wake_up_parent(current, current->parent);
+ /* Re-use sub-threads' auto-reap logic */
+ current->exit_signal = -1;
+ write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
+
out:
restore_debug_error(ctx, ret);
if (ret < 0)
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index 6d81911..75cab68 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -1554,6 +1554,11 @@ static int wait_consider_task(struct wait_opts *wo, int ptrace,
if (p->exit_state == EXIT_DEAD)
return 0;
+#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT
+ if (p->ckpt_ghost)
+ return 0;
+#endif
+
/*
* We don't reap group leaders with subthreads.
*/
--
Dr Louis Rilling Kerlabs
Skype: louis.rilling Batiment Germanium
Phone: (+33|0) 6 80 89 08 23 80 avenue des Buttes de Coesmes
http://www.kerlabs.com/ 35700 Rennes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
