On 6/1/23 5:47 AM, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:58:38AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> 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: > You might've missed it in the thread but it seems everyone is currently > operating under the assumption that the preferred way is to fix this is > rather than revert. See the mail in [1]: > > "So I'd really like to finish this. Even if we end up with a hack or > two in signal handling that we can hopefully fix up later by having > vhost fix up some of its current assumptions." > > which is why no revert was send for -rc4. And there's a temporary fix we > seem to have converged on. > > @Mike, do you want to prepare an updated version of the temporary fix. > If @Linus prefers to just apply it directly he can just grab it from the > list rather than delaying it. Make sure to grab a Co-developed-by line > on this, @Mike. Yes, I'll send it within a couple hours. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
