From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755263Ab3AWNEE (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:04:04 -0500 Received: from relay.parallels.com ([195.214.232.42]:50003 "EHLO relay.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754716Ab3AWNEB (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:04:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:03:03 +0400 From: Andrew Vagin To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" CC: Andrey Vagin , , , , , Serge Hallyn , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , "Eric W. Biederman" , Al Viro , Pavel Emelyanov , Cyrill Gorcunov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] signalfd: a kernel interface for dumping pending signals Message-ID: <20130123130303.GA17704@paralelels.com> References: <1358849741-9611-1-git-send-email-avagin@openvz.org> <20130123110323.GA23139@paralelels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Originating-IP: [10.30.16.48] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:11:42PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Andrey, > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Vagin wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 05:19:24AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> Hi Andrey, > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Andrey Vagin wrote: > >> > This patch set adds ability to choose a signal queue and > >> > to read signals without dequeuing them. > >> > > >> > Three new flags are added: > >> > SFD_SHARED_QUEUE -- reads will be from process-wide shared signal queue > >> > SFD_PER_THREAD_QUEUE -- reads will be from per-thread signal queue > >> > SFD_PEEK -- don't dequeue signals > > > >> > >> A fuller description of the patch, including information that was in > >> previous versions of this patch would be helpful. Let me see if I can > >> summarize/fill out the API side of things, and ask a few questions > >> along the way (yes, I could answer some of the questions by checking > >> the code, but I want to know what the *intended* behavior is). > >> > >> The patch series adds a total of 4 flags to signalfd(). In addition to > >> those you list above, the other is > > > > In additional we can say, that this patch series adds three orthogonal, > > independent groups of flags. > > * SFD_RAW > > * SFD_PEEK > > * SFD_SHARED_QUEUE, SFD_PER_THREAD_QUEUE > > Thanks. Nice summary. > > >> SFD_RAW -- return raw siginfo structs when reading, rather than signalfd_siginfo > >> > >> The intention is that these flags be used in conjunction with pread(), > >> to peek at queued signals. The 'offset' argument is treated as a > >> position. Thus, for example, to non-destructively read all of the > >> per-thread signals in raw form from the per-thread queue, one would > >> write > >> > > > > siginfo_t *buf; > > > >> fd = signalfd(-1, SFD_PER_THREAD_QUEUE | SFD_RAW | SFD_PEEK) > >> for (j = 0; ; j++) { > >> s = pread(fd, buf, ocunt, j) > > s = pread(fd, buf + j, sizeof(siginfo_t), j); > >> if (s <= 0) /* No more signals */ > >> break; > >> } > > > > This examples reads signals one by one > > > > or > > > > siginfo_t *buf = NULL; > > unsigned long buf_size = 0, nr = 0; > > int ret; > > > > while (1) { > > bug_size += PAGE_SIZ; > > buf = realloc(buf, buf_size); > > if (buf == NULL) > > goto err; > > ret = pread(fd, buf + nr, sizeof(siginfo_t), nr); > > if (ret == -1) > > goto err; > > nr += ret / sizeof(siginfo_t); > > if (ret < PAGE_SIZE) /* No more signals */ > > break; > > } > > > > pread() can read more than one signal. > > (Thanks for the reminder on that last point.) > > > * The interface of signalfd could be a bit more predictable, > > if we will treat pos as offset in bytes, not in elements. > > > > pread(fd, buf, sizeof(siginfo_t), i * sizeof(siginfo_t)) - > > reads a signal with a sequence number i in a queue. > > Can you explain what you mean by "more predictable"? It's not clear to me. offset is usual in bytes. Lets imagine that we have a file, which contains siginfo-s. If "pos" is offset in bytes, the same code can reads siginfo-s from the file and from signalfd. > > >> Right? > >> > >> Now some questions. I don't require all of the following, but I'm > >> wanting to know what's possible, for documentation purposes. > >> > >> Q1: with this patch series, is it permissible to specify > >> SFD_PER_THREAD_QUEUE or SFD_SHARED_QUEUE without specifying either > >> SFD_PEEK or SFD_QUEUE? In other words, can one do traditional > >> signalfd_siginfo reads, but selecting from a specific queue. > > > > Yes, we can > >> > >> Q2: Is it possible to specify SFD_PEEK without SFD_RAW, so that one > >> can peek at siginfo structs rather than signalfd_siginfo structs? > > > > Yes, it is possible. read() and pread() returns signalfd_siginfo structs > > in this case. > > > >> > >> Q3: Is it possible to specify SFD_RAW without SFD_PEEK, so that one > >> can destructively read signalfd_siginfo structs? Can that be done > >> using any read interface (read(), pread(), etc.)? > > Yes, it is possible too. read() will return siginfo structs. > > 3 * yes is nice! > > For which of the above 3 questions was the answer "No" with the > previous version of these patches (the version that specified queue > selection in pread())? Only for the first question. > > > >> Q4: Is it possible to specify both SFD_PER_THREAD_QUEUE and > >> SFD_SHARED_QUEUE? In that case, in what order are signals read from > >> the two queues? > >> > > > > It is equal to the case, when none of these flags are not specified. > > And it is equal to what we had before this patches. > > signalfd() reads signals from a private queue, then from a shared queue. > > So, the 'offset' argument of pread() is interpreted by considering the > per-thread and shared queue as one concatenated list, right? It's true, if both SFD_QUEUE flags was specified. If only one for these flags is specified, the 'offset' argument is a sequnce number in a proper list. > > If yes to the previous question, then from an API design point of view > that seems odd: it exposes an implementation detail. Is specifying > both SFD_PER_THREAD_QUEUE and SFD_SHARED_QUEUE usefule for > checkpoint/restore? No. crtools reads signals from each queue separately. > I almost wonder if, when SFD_PEEK is specified, a > requirement should be enforced that SFD_PER_THREAD_QUEUE or > SFD_SHARED_QUEUE, but not both, must be specified. What do you think? Looks reasonable. > > Thanks, > > Michael