public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
	Andrew Morton <[email protected]>,
	Christian Brauner <[email protected]>,
	Tycho Andersen <[email protected]>,
	Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], Julian Orth <[email protected]>,
	Tejun Heo <[email protected]>, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: rerun task_work while freezing in get_signal()
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:40:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 7/8/24 11:42, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/07, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>
>> io_uring can asynchronously add a task_work while the task is getting
>> freezed. TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL will prevent the task from sleeping in
>> do_freezer_trap(), and since the get_signal()'s relock loop doesn't
>> retry task_work, the task will spin there not being able to sleep
>> until the freezing is cancelled / the task is killed / etc.
>>
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Link: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/33626
>> Fixes: 3146cba99aa28 ("io-wq: make worker creation resilient against signals")
> 
> I don't think we should blame io_uring even if so far it is the only user
> of TWA_SIGNAL.

And it's not entirely correct even for backporting purposes,
I'll pin it to when freezing was introduced then.

> Perhaps we should change do_freezer_trap() somehow, not sure... It assumes
> that TIF_SIGPENDING is the only reason to not sleep in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
> today this is not true.

Let's CC Peter Zijlstra and Tejun in case they might have
some input on that.

Link to this patch for convenience:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/1d935e9d87fd8672ef3e8a9a0db340d355ea08b4.1720368770.git.asml.silence@gmail.com/

>> --- a/kernel/signal.c
>> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
>> @@ -2694,6 +2694,10 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
>>   	try_to_freeze();
>>   
>>   relock:
>> +	clear_notify_signal();
>> +	if (unlikely(task_work_pending(current)))
>> +		task_work_run();
>> +
>>   	spin_lock_irq(&sighand->siglock);
> 
> Well, but can't we kill the same code at the start of get_signal() then?
> Of course, in this case get_signal() should check signal_pending(), not
> task_sigpending().

Should be fine, but I didn't want to change the
try_to_freeze() -> __refrigerator() path, which also reschedules.

> Or perhaps something like the patch below makes more sense? I dunno...

It needs a far backporting, I'd really prefer to keep it
lean and without more side effects if possible, unless
there is a strong opinion on that.

> Oleg.
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index 1f9dd41c04be..e2ae85293fbb 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -2676,6 +2676,7 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
>   	struct signal_struct *signal = current->signal;
>   	int signr;
>   
> +start:
>   	clear_notify_signal();
>   	if (unlikely(task_work_pending(current)))
>   		task_work_run();
> @@ -2760,10 +2761,11 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
>   			if (current->jobctl & JOBCTL_TRAP_MASK) {
>   				do_jobctl_trap();
>   				spin_unlock_irq(&sighand->siglock);
> +				goto relock;
>   			} else if (current->jobctl & JOBCTL_TRAP_FREEZE)
>   				do_freezer_trap();
> -
> -			goto relock;
> +				goto start;
> +			}
>   		}
>   
>   		/*
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov

  reply	other threads:[~2024-07-08 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-07 16:32 [PATCH 0/2] fix task_work interation with freezing Pavel Begunkov
2024-07-07 16:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] io_uring/io-wq: limit retrying worker initialisation Pavel Begunkov
2024-07-07 16:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] kernel: rerun task_work while freezing in get_signal() Pavel Begunkov
2024-07-08 10:42   ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-07-08 15:40     ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2024-07-08 18:48       ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-07-09 10:36       ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-07-09 14:05         ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-07-09 16:39           ` Tejun Heo
2024-07-09 19:07             ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-07-09 19:26               ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-07-09 19:38                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-07-09 19:55                   ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-07-10  0:54                     ` Tejun Heo
2024-07-10 17:53                       ` Pavel Begunkov
2024-07-10 19:10                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-07-10 19:20                           ` Tejun Heo
2024-07-10 21:34                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-07-10 22:01                               ` Tejun Heo
2024-07-10 22:17                                 ` Oleg Nesterov

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] \
    [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