On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:09:03AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 1:11 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 8:56 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 07:00:23PM -0800, Munehisa Kamata wrote: > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/psi.c b/kernel/sched/psi.c > > > > index 8ac8b81bfee6..6e66c15f6450 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/psi.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/psi.c > > > > @@ -1343,10 +1343,11 @@ void psi_trigger_destroy(struct psi_trigger *t) > > > > > > > > group = t->group; > > > > /* > > > > - * Wakeup waiters to stop polling. Can happen if cgroup is deleted > > > > - * from under a polling process. > > > > + * Wakeup waiters to stop polling and clear the queue to prevent it from > > > > + * being accessed later. Can happen if cgroup is deleted from under a > > > > + * polling process otherwise. > > > > */ > > > > - wake_up_interruptible(&t->event_wait); > > > > + wake_up_pollfree(&t->event_wait); > > > > > > > > mutex_lock(&group->trigger_lock); > > > > > > wake_up_pollfree() should only be used in extremely rare cases. Why can't the > > > lifetime of the waitqueue be fixed instead? > > > > waitqueue lifetime in this case is linked to cgroup_file_release(), > > which seems appropriate to me here. Unfortunately > > cgroup_file_release() is not directly linked to the file's lifetime. > > For more details see: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJuCfpFZ3B4530TgsSHqp5F_gwfrDujwRYewKReJru==MdEHQg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#t > > . > > So, if we want to fix the lifetime of the waitqueue, we would have to > > tie cgroup_file_release() to the fput() somehow. IOW, the fix would > > have to be done at the cgroups or higher (kernfs?) layer. > > Hi Eric, > Do you still object to using wake_up_pollfree() for this case? > Changing higher levels to make cgroup_file_release() be tied to fput() > would be ideal but I think that would be a big change for this one > case. If you agree I'll Ack this patch. > Thanks, > Suren. > I haven't read the code closely in this case. I'm just letting you know that wake_up_pollfree() is very much a last-resort option for when the waitqueue lifetime can't be fixed. So if you want to use wake_up_pollfree(), you need to explain why no other fix is possible. For example maybe the UAPI depends on the waitqueue having a nonstandard lifetime. - Eric
