Hi Mike, sorry, but somehow I can't understand this patch... I'll try to read it with a fresh head on Weekend, but for example, On 06/01, Mike Christie wrote: > > static int vhost_task_fn(void *data) > { > struct vhost_task *vtsk = data; > - int ret; > + bool dead = false; > + > + for (;;) { > + bool did_work; > + > + /* mb paired w/ vhost_task_stop */ > + if (test_bit(VHOST_TASK_FLAGS_STOP, &vtsk->flags)) > + break; > + > + if (!dead && signal_pending(current)) { > + struct ksignal ksig; > + /* > + * Calling get_signal will block in SIGSTOP, > + * or clear fatal_signal_pending, but remember > + * what was set. > + * > + * This thread won't actually exit until all > + * of the file descriptors are closed, and > + * the release function is called. > + */ > + dead = get_signal(&ksig); > + if (dead) > + clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING); this can't be right or I am totally confused. Another signal_wake_up() can come right after clear(SIGPENDING). Again, I'll try to re-read this patch, but let me ask anyway... Do we have a plan B? I mean... iirc you have mentioned that you can change these code paths to do something like if (killed) tell_the_drivers_that_all_callbacks_will_fail(); so that vhost_worker() can exit after get_signal() returns SIGKILL. Probably I misunderstood you, but it would be nice to avoid the changes in coredump/etc code just to add a temporary (iiuc!) fix. Oleg. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization