From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Allow signals for IO threads
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:55:43 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 3/26/21 8:53 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/26/21 8:45 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
>> Am 26.03.21 um 15:43 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher:
>>> Am 26.03.21 um 15:38 schrieb Jens Axboe:
>>>> On 3/26/21 7:59 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 3/26/21 7:54 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>> The KILL after STOP deadlock still exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In which tree? Sounds like you're still on the old one with that
>>>>>> incremental you sent, which wasn't complete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does io_wq_manager() exits without cleaning up on SIGKILL?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it should kill up in all cases. I'll try your stop + kill, I just
>>>>>> tested both of them separately and didn't observe anything. I also ran
>>>>>> your io_uring-cp example (and found a bug in the example, fixed and
>>>>>> pushed), fwiw.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can reproduce this one! I'll take a closer look.
>>>>
>>>> OK, that one is actually pretty straight forward - we rely on cleaning
>>>> up on exit, but for fatal cases, get_signal() will call do_exit() for us
>>>> and never return. So we might need a special case in there to deal with
>>>> that, or some other way of ensuring that fatal signal gets processed
>>>> correctly for IO threads.
>>>
>>> And if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) doesn't prevent get_signal() from being called?
>>
>> Ah, we're still in the first get_signal() from SIGSTOP, correct?
>
> Yes exactly, we're waiting in there being stopped. So we either need to
> check to something ala:
>
> relock:
> + if (current->flags & PF_IO_WORKER && fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + return false;
>
> to catch it upfront and from the relock case, or add:
>
> fatal:
> + if (current->flags & PF_IO_WORKER)
> + return false;
>
> to catch it in the fatal section.
Can you try this? Not crazy about adding a special case, but I don't
think there's any way around this one. And should be pretty cheap, as
we're already pulling in ->flags right above anyway.
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 5ad8566534e7..5b75fbe3d2d6 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -2752,6 +2752,15 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
*/
current->flags |= PF_SIGNALED;
+ /*
+ * PF_IO_WORKER threads will catch and exit on fatal signals
+ * themselves. They have cleanup that must be performed, so
+ * we cannot call do_exit() on their behalf. coredumps also
+ * do not apply to them.
+ */
+ if (current->flags & PF_IO_WORKER)
+ return false;
+
if (sig_kernel_coredump(signr)) {
if (print_fatal_signals)
print_fatal_signal(ksig->info.si_signo);
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-26 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-26 0:39 [PATCH 0/6] Allow signals for IO threads Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 0:39 ` [PATCH 1/8] io_uring: handle signals for IO threads like a normal thread Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 0:39 ` [PATCH 2/8] kernel: unmask SIGSTOP for IO threads Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 13:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2021-03-26 15:01 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:23 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-26 15:29 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 18:01 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-26 18:59 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-01 14:53 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-26 0:39 ` [PATCH 3/8] Revert "signal: don't allow sending any signals to PF_IO_WORKER threads" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 0:39 ` [PATCH 4/8] Revert "kernel: treat PF_IO_WORKER like PF_KTHREAD for ptrace/signals" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 0:39 ` [PATCH 5/8] Revert "kernel: freezer should treat PF_IO_WORKER like PF_KTHREAD for freezing" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 0:39 ` [PATCH 6/8] Revert "signal: don't allow STOP on PF_IO_WORKER threads" Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
2021-03-26 12:56 ` [PATCH 0/6] Allow signals for IO threads Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 13:31 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-26 13:54 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 13:59 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 14:38 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 14:43 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-26 14:45 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-26 14:53 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 14:55 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-03-26 15:08 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-26 15:10 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:11 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-26 15:12 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:04 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-26 15:09 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 14:50 ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-27 1:46 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-03-27 16:41 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-01 14:58 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-04-01 15:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-04-01 16:00 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-04-01 16:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-04-03 0:48 ` Stefan Metzmacher
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox