Re: [PATCH v11 8/8] vhost: use vhost_tasks for worker threads

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 05/16, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> There is this bit in complete_signal when SIGKILL is delivered to any
> >> thread in the process.
> >>
> >> 			t = p;
> >> 			do {
> >> 				task_clear_jobctl_pending(t, JOBCTL_PENDING_MASK);
> >> 				sigaddset(&t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
> >> 				signal_wake_up(t, 1);
> >> 			} while_each_thread(p, t);
> >
> > That is why the latest version adds try_set_pending_sigkill(). No, no,
> > it is not that I think this is a good idea.
> I see that try_set_pending_sigkill in the patch now.
> That try_set_pending_sigkill just keeps the process from reporting
> that it has exited, and extend the process exit indefinitely.
> SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT has already been set, so the KILL signal was
> already delivered and the process is exiting.

Agreed, that is why I said I don't think try_set_pending_sigkill() is
a good idea.

And again, the same is true for the threads created by
create_io_thread(). get_signal() from io_uring/ can dequeue a pending
SIGKILL and return, but that is all.

> >> For clarity that sigaddset(&t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);  Really isn't
> >> setting SIGKILL pending,
> >
> > Hmm. it does? Nevermind.
> The point is that what try_set_pending_sigkill in the patch is doing is
> keeping the "you are dead exit now" flag, from being set.
> That flag is what fatal_signal_pending always tests, because we can only
> know if a fatal signal is pending if we have performed short circuit
> delivery on the signal.
> The result is the effects of the change are mostly what people expect.
> The difference the semantics being changed aren't what people think they
> are.
> AKA process exit is being ignored for the thread, not that SIGKILL is
> being blocked.

Sorry, I don't understand. I just tried to say that
sigaddset(&t->pending.signal, SIGKILL) really sets SIGKILL pending.

> > Although I never understood this logic.

I meant I never really liked how io-threads play with signals,

> I can't even understand the usage
> > of lower_32_bits() in create_io_thread().
> As far as I can tell lower_32_bits(flags) is just defensive programming

Cough. but this is ugly. Or I missed something.

> or have just populated .flags directly.


> Then .exit_signal
> could have been set to 0.


OK. It doesn't matter. I tried to read the whole thread and got lost.

IIUC, Mike is going to send the next version? So I think we can delay
the further discussions until then.


Virtualization mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux