All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: io-uring@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	metze@samba.org, oleg@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] io_uring: handle signals for IO threads like a normal thread
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:49:53 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <387feabb-e758-220a-fc34-9e9325eab3a6@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7a71da2f-ca39-6bbf-28c1-bcc2eec43943@kernel.dk>

On 3/26/21 4:38 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/26/21 4:35 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/26/21 4:23 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/26/21 2:29 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We go through various hoops to disallow signals for the IO threads, but
>>>>>>> there's really no reason why we cannot just allow them. The IO threads
>>>>>>> never return to userspace like a normal thread, and hence don't go through
>>>>>>> normal signal processing. Instead, just check for a pending signal as part
>>>>>>> of the work loop, and call get_signal() to handle it for us if anything
>>>>>>> is pending.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With that, we can support receiving signals, including special ones like
>>>>>>> SIGSTOP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  fs/io-wq.c    | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>>>>  fs/io_uring.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>>>>>>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/io-wq.c b/fs/io-wq.c
>>>>>>> index b7c1fa932cb3..3e2f059a1737 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/fs/io-wq.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/io-wq.c
>>>>>>> @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@
>>>>>>>  #include <linux/rculist_nulls.h>
>>>>>>>  #include <linux/cpu.h>
>>>>>>>  #include <linux/tracehook.h>
>>>>>>> -#include <linux/freezer.h>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  #include "../kernel/sched/sched.h"
>>>>>>>  #include "io-wq.h"
>>>>>>> @@ -503,10 +502,16 @@ static int io_wqe_worker(void *data)
>>>>>>>  		if (io_flush_signals())
>>>>>>>  			continue;
>>>>>>>  		ret = schedule_timeout(WORKER_IDLE_TIMEOUT);
>>>>>>> -		if (try_to_freeze() || ret)
>>>>>>> +		if (signal_pending(current)) {
>>>>>>> +			struct ksignal ksig;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +			if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>>>>>>> +				break;
>>>>>>> +			if (get_signal(&ksig))
>>>>>>> +				continue;
>>>>>>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is wrong.  You are promising to deliver a signal to signal
>>>>>> handler and them simply discarding it.  Perhaps:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			if (!get_signal(&ksig))
>>>>>>                         	continue;
>>>>>> 			WARN_ON(!sig_kernel_stop(ksig->sig));
>>>>>>                         break;
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, updated.
>>>>
>>>> Gah.  Kill the WARN_ON.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking "WARN_ON(!sig_kernel_fatal(ksig->sig));"
>>>> The function sig_kernel_fatal does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Fatal is the state that is left when a signal is neither
>>>> ignored nor a stop signal, and does not have a handler.
>>>>
>>>> The rest of the logic still works.
>>>
>>> I've just come to the same conclusion myself after testing it.
>>> Of the 3 cases, most of them can do the continue, but doesn't
>>> really matter with the way the loop is structured. Anyway, looks
>>> like this now:
>>
>> This idiom in the code:
>>> +		if (signal_pending(current)) {
>>> +			struct ksignal ksig;
>>> +
>>> +			if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>>> +				break;
>>> +			if (!get_signal(&ksig))
>>> +				continue;
>>>  }
>>
>> Needs to be:
>>> +		if (signal_pending(current)) {
>>> +			struct ksignal ksig;
>>> +
>>> +			if (!get_signal(&ksig))
>>> +				continue;
>>> +			break;
>>>  }
>>
>> Because any signal returned from get_signal is fatal in this case.
>> It might make sense to "WARN_ON(ksig->ka.sa.sa_handler != SIG_DFL)".
>> As the io workers don't handle that case.
>>
>> It won't happen because you have everything blocked.
>>
>> The extra fatal_signal_pending(current) logic is just confusing in this
>> case.
> 
> OK good point, and follows the same logic even if it won't make a
> difference in my case. I'll make the change.

Made the suggested edits and ran the quick tests and the KILL/STOP
testing, and no ill effects observed. Kicked off the longer runs now.

Not a huge amount of changes from the posted series, but please peruse
here if you want to double check:

https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=io_uring-5.12

And diff against v2 posted is below. Thanks!

diff --git a/fs/io-wq.c b/fs/io-wq.c
index 3e2f059a1737..7434eb40ca8c 100644
--- a/fs/io-wq.c
+++ b/fs/io-wq.c
@@ -505,10 +505,9 @@ static int io_wqe_worker(void *data)
 		if (signal_pending(current)) {
 			struct ksignal ksig;
 
-			if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
-				break;
-			if (get_signal(&ksig))
+			if (!get_signal(&ksig))
 				continue;
+			break;
 		}
 		if (ret)
 			continue;
@@ -722,10 +721,9 @@ static int io_wq_manager(void *data)
 		if (signal_pending(current)) {
 			struct ksignal ksig;
 
-			if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
-				set_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT, &wq->state);
-			else if (get_signal(&ksig))
+			if (!get_signal(&ksig))
 				continue;
+			set_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT, &wq->state);
 		}
 	} while (!test_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_EXIT, &wq->state));
 
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 66ae46874d85..880abd8b6d31 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -6746,10 +6746,9 @@ static int io_sq_thread(void *data)
 		if (signal_pending(current)) {
 			struct ksignal ksig;
 
-			if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
-				break;
-			if (get_signal(&ksig))
+			if (!get_signal(&ksig))
 				continue;
+			break;
 		}
 		sqt_spin = false;
 		cap_entries = !list_is_singular(&sqd->ctx_list);
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 5b75fbe3d2d6..f2718350bf4b 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -2752,15 +2752,6 @@ 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);
@@ -2776,6 +2767,14 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
 			do_coredump(&ksig->info);
 		}
 
+		/*
+		 * 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.
+		 */
+		if (current->flags & PF_IO_WORKER)
+			goto out;
+
 		/*
 		 * Death signals, no core dump.
 		 */
@@ -2783,7 +2782,7 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
 		/* NOTREACHED */
 	}
 	spin_unlock_irq(&sighand->siglock);
-
+out:
 	ksig->sig = signr;
 
 	if (!(ksig->ka.sa.sa_flags & SA_EXPOSE_TAGBITS))

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-26 22:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-26 15:51 [PATCHSET v2 0/7] Allow signals for IO threads Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 1/7] kernel: don't call do_exit() for PF_IO_WORKER threads Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 20:43   ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-26 22:11     ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 2/7] io_uring: handle signals for IO threads like a normal thread Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 20:29   ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-26 22:14     ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 22:23       ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-26 22:30         ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 22:35           ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-26 22:38             ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 22:49               ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-03-27 17:40                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-27 20:08                   ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 03/10] Revert "signal: don't allow sending any signals to PF_IO_WORKER threads" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 3/7] kernel: stop masking signals in create_io_thread() Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 20:44   ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 04/10] Revert "kernel: treat PF_IO_WORKER like PF_KTHREAD for ptrace/signals" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 4/7] Revert "signal: don't allow sending any signals to PF_IO_WORKER threads" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 05/10] Revert "kernel: freezer should treat PF_IO_WORKER like PF_KTHREAD for freezing" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 5/7] Revert "kernel: treat PF_IO_WORKER like PF_KTHREAD for ptrace/signals" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 6/7] Revert "kernel: freezer should treat PF_IO_WORKER like PF_KTHREAD for freezing" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 06/10] Revert "signal: don't allow STOP on PF_IO_WORKER threads" Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 7/7] " Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 07/10] io_uring: fix timeout cancel return code Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 08/10] io_uring: do post-completion chore on t-out cancel Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 09/10] io_uring: don't cancel-track common timeouts Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:51 ` [PATCH 10/10] io_uring: don't cancel extra on files match Jens Axboe
2021-03-26 15:54 ` [PATCHSET v2 0/7] Allow signals for IO threads Jens Axboe

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=387feabb-e758-220a-fc34-9e9325eab3a6@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=metze@samba.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.