From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:56:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKOZuesgRPabwrx9pjf3p0S-7nsqeXoUVxeykOOmHokAL=5wqw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKOZuetX4jMPDtDqAvGgSNo4BHf9BOnu79ufEiULfM5X5nDyyQ@mail.gmail.com>
[Resending due to accidental HTML. I need to take Joel's advice and
switch to a real email client]
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 5:54 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 5:09 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andy!
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 02:32:53PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM Joel Fernandes (Google)
>> > <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > pidfd are /proc/pid directory file descriptors referring to a task group
>> > > leader. Android low memory killer (LMK) needs pidfd polling support to
>> > > replace code that currently checks for existence of /proc/pid for
>> > > knowing a process that is signalled to be killed has died, which is both
>> > > racy and slow. The pidfd poll approach is race-free, and also allows the
>> > > LMK to do other things (such as by polling on other fds) while awaiting
>> > > the process being killed to die.
>> > >
>> > > It prevents a situation where a PID is reused between when LMK sends a
>> > > kill signal and checks for existence of the PID, since the wrong PID is
>> > > now possibly checked for existence.
>> > >
>> > > In this patch, we follow the same mechanism used uhen the parent of the
>> > > task group is to be notified, that is when the tasks waiting on a poll
>> > > of pidfd are also awakened.
>> > >
>> > > We have decided to include the waitqueue in struct pid for the following
>> > > reasons:
>> > > 1. The wait queue has to survive for the lifetime of the poll. Including
>> > > it in task_struct would not be option in this case because the task can
>> > > be reaped and destroyed before the poll returns.
>> >
>> > Are you sure? I admit I'm not all that familiar with the innards of
>> > poll() on Linux, but I thought that the waitqueue only had to survive
>> > long enough to kick the polling thread and did *not* have to survive
>> > until poll() actually returned.
>>
>> I am not sure now. I thought epoll(2) was based on the wait_event APIs,
>> however more closely looking at the eventpoll code, it looks like there are 2
>> waitqueues involved, one that we pass and the other that is a part of the
>> eventpoll session itself, so you could be right about that. Daniel Colascione
>> may have some more thoughts about it since he brought up the possiblity of a
>> wq life-time issue. Daniel? We were just playing it safe.
I think you (Joel) and Andy are talking about different meanings of
poll(). Joel is talking about the VFS method; Andy is talking about
the system call. ISTM that the lifetime of wait queue we give to
poll_wait needs to last through the poll. Normally the wait queue gets
pinned by the struct file that we give to poll_wait (which takes a
reference on the struct file), but the pidfd struct file doesn't pin
the struct task, so we can't use a wait queue in struct task.
(remove_wait_queue, which poll implementations call to undo wait queue
additions, takes the wait queue head we pass to poll_wait, and we
don't want to pass a dangling pointer to remove_wait_queue.) If the
lifetime requirements for the queue aren't this strict, I don't see it
documented anywhere. Besides: if we don't actually need to pin the
waitqueue lifetime for the duration of the poll, why bother taking a
reference on the polled struct file?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-13 0:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-11 17:50 [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-04-11 17:50 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] Add selftests for pidfd polling Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-04-12 14:51 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-04-11 20:00 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 20:02 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-11 20:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-12 21:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-04-13 0:09 ` Joel Fernandes
[not found] ` <CAKOZuetX4jMPDtDqAvGgSNo4BHf9BOnu79ufEiULfM5X5nDyyQ@mail.gmail.com>
2019-04-13 0:56 ` Daniel Colascione [this message]
2019-04-14 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-16 12:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-16 12:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-16 19:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-16 19:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-17 13:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-18 17:23 ` Jann Horn
2019-04-18 17:26 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-18 17:53 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-19 19:02 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-19 19:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 19:22 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 19:42 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 19:49 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-19 20:01 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 21:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-19 20:34 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-19 20:57 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 21:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-19 21:24 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-19 21:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-19 22:08 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-19 22:17 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 22:37 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-24 8:04 ` Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2019-04-19 21:59 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-20 11:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-20 12:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-20 12:35 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 23:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-19 23:20 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 23:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-19 23:36 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-20 0:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-19 21:21 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-19 21:48 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 22:02 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 22:46 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-19 23:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 23:46 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-20 0:17 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-24 9:05 ` Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2019-04-24 9:03 ` Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2019-04-19 22:35 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-19 23:02 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-19 23:29 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-20 0:02 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-24 9:17 ` Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2019-04-24 9:11 ` Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2019-04-24 8:56 ` Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2019-04-24 8:20 ` Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
2019-04-19 15:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-19 18:12 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-18 18:44 ` Jonathan Kowalski
2019-04-18 18:57 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-18 19:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-19 19:05 ` Joel Fernandes
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 \
--in-reply-to='CAKOZuesgRPabwrx9pjf3p0S-7nsqeXoUVxeykOOmHokAL=5wqw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dancol@google.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ap420073@gmail.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=avagin@gmail.com \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tycho@tycho.ws \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).