From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>,
Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>,
Al Viro <[email protected]>,
io-uring <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.15-rc3
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:59:53 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 9/27/21 8:29 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/27/21 7:51 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Jens Axboe <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/25/21 5:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 1:32 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> - io-wq core dump exit fix (me)
>>>>
>>>> Hmm.
>>>>
>>>> That one strikes me as odd.
>>>>
>>>> I get the feeling that if the io_uring thread needs to have that
>>>> signal_group_exit() test, something is wrong in signal-land.
>>>>
>>>> It's basically a "fatal signal has been sent to another thread", and I
>>>> really get the feeling that "fatal_signal_pending()" should just be
>>>> modified to handle that case too.
>>>
>>> It did surprise me as well, which is why that previous change ended up
>>> being broken for the coredump case... You could argue that the io-wq
>>> thread should just exit on signal_pending(), which is what we did
>>> before, but that really ends up sucking for workloads that do use
>>> signals for communication purposes. postgres was the reporter here.
>>
>> The primary function get_signal is to make signals not pending. So I
>> don't understand any use of testing signal_pending after a call to
>> get_signal.
>>
>> My confusion doubles when I consider the fact io_uring threads should
>> only be dequeuing SIGSTOP and SIGKILL.
>>
>> I am concerned that an io_uring thread that dequeues SIGKILL won't call
>> signal_group_exit and thus kill the other threads in the thread group.
>>
>> What motivated removing the break and adding the fatal_signal_pending
>> test?
>
> I played with this a bit this morning, and I agree it doesn't seem to be
> needed at all. The original issue was with postgres, I'll give that a
> whirl as well and see if we run into any unwarranted exits. My simpler
> test case did not.
Ran the postgres test, and we get tons of io-wq exiting on get_signal()
returning true. Took a closer look, and it actually looks very much
expected, as it's a SIGKILL to the original task.
So it looks like I was indeed wrong, and this probably masked the
original issue that was fixed in that series. I've been running with
this:
diff --git a/fs/io-wq.c b/fs/io-wq.c
index c2360cdc403d..afd1db8e000d 100644
--- a/fs/io-wq.c
+++ b/fs/io-wq.c
@@ -584,10 +584,9 @@ static int io_wqe_worker(void *data)
if (!get_signal(&ksig))
continue;
- if (fatal_signal_pending(current) ||
- signal_group_exit(current->signal))
- break;
- continue;
+ if (ksig.sig != SIGKILL)
+ printk("exit on sig! fatal? %d, sig=%d\n", fatal_signal_pending(current), ksig.sig);
+ break;
}
last_timeout = !ret;
}
and it's running fine and, as expected, we don't generate any printk
activity as these are all fatal deliveries to the parent.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-27 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-25 20:32 [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.15-rc3 Jens Axboe
2021-09-25 23:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-09-26 1:20 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-27 13:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-09-27 14:29 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-27 14:59 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-09-27 15:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-09-27 15:41 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-27 15:52 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-09-27 16:03 ` Jens Axboe
2021-09-26 4:31 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-09-25 23:05 ` pr-tracker-bot
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] \
/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