On 19.05.23 14:15, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:25:11AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: >> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 07:09:12PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote: >>> This patch allows the vhost and vhost_task code to use CLONE_THREAD, >>> CLONE_SIGHAND and CLONE_FILES. It's a RFC because I didn't do all the >>> normal testing, haven't coverted vsock and vdpa, and I know you guys >>> will not like the first patch. However, I think it better shows what >> >> Just to summarize the core idea behind my proposal is that no signal >> handling changes are needed unless there's a bug in the current way >> io_uring workers already work. All that should be needed is >> s/PF_IO_WORKER/PF_USER_WORKER/ in signal.c. [...] >> So it feels like this should be achievable by adding a callback to >> struct vhost_worker that get's called when vhost_worker() gets SIGKILL >> and that all the users of vhost workers are forced to implement. >> >> Yes, it is more work but I think that's the right thing to do and not to >> complicate our signal handling. >> >> Worst case if this can't be done fast enough we'll have to revert the >> vhost parts. I think the user worker parts are mostly sane and are > > As mentioned, if we can't settle this cleanly before -rc4 we should > revert the vhost parts unless Linus wants to have it earlier. Meanwhile -rc5 is just a few days away and there are still a lot of discussions in the patch-set proposed to address the issues[1]. Which is kinda great (albeit also why I haven't given it a spin yet), but on the other hand makes we wonder: Is it maybe time to revert the vhost parts for 6.4 and try again next cycle? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230522025124.5863-1-michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx/ Ciao, Thorsten "not sure if I'm asking because I'm affected, or because it's my duty as regression tracker" Leemhuis _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
