Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 10:49 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 10:34:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >
>> > So that "!=" should obviously have been a "==".
>>
>> Same as without the condition - all the fsstress tasks hang in
>> do_coredump().
>
> Ok, that at least makes sense. Your "it made things worse" made me go
> "What?" until I noticed the stupid backwards test.
>
> I'm not seeing anything else that looks odd in that commit
> f9010dbdce91 ("fork, vhost: Use CLONE_THREAD to fix freezer/ps
> regression").
>
> Let's see if somebody else goes "Ahh" when they wake up tomorrow...
It feels like there have been about half a dozen bugs pointed out in
that version of the patch. I am going to have to sleep before I can get
as far as "Ahh"
One thing that really stands out for me is.
if (test_if_loop_should_continue) {
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule();
}
/* elsewhere */
llist_add(...);
wake_up_process()
So it is possible that the code can sleep indefinitely waiting for a
wake-up that has already come, because the order of set_current_state
and the test are in the wrong order.
Unfortunately I don't see what would effect a coredump on a process that
does not trigger the vhost_worker code.
About the only thing I can image is if io_uring is involved. Some of
the PF_IO_WORKER code was changed, and the test
"((t->flags & (PF_USER_WORKER | PF_IO_WORKER)) != PF_USER_WORKER)"
was sprinkled around.
That is the only code outside of vhost specific code that was changed.
Is io_uring involved in the cases that hang?
Eric
