linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] kernel: decouple TASK_WORK TWA_SIGNAL handling from signals
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 18:27:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201001162719.GD13633@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3ce9e205-aad0-c9ce-86a7-b281f1c0237a@kernel.dk>

Jens,

I'll read this version tomorrow, but:

On 10/01, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>  static inline int signal_pending(struct task_struct *p)
>  {
> -	return unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(p,TIF_SIGPENDING));
> +#ifdef TIF_TASKWORK
> +	/*
> +	 * TIF_TASKWORK isn't really a signal, but it requires the same
> +	 * behavior of restarting the system call to force a kernel/user
> +	 * transition.
> +	 */
> +	return unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_SIGPENDING) ||
> +			test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_TASKWORK));
> +#else
> +	return unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_SIGPENDING));
> +#endif

This change alone is already very wrong.

signal_pending(task) == T means that this task will do get_signal() as
soon as it can, and this basically means you can't "divorce" SIGPENDING
and TASKWORK.

Simple example. Suppose we have a single-threaded task T.

Someone does task_work_add(T, TWA_SIGNAL). This makes signal_pending()==T
and this is what we need.

Now suppose that another task sends a signal to T before T calls
task_work_run() and clears TIF_TASKWORK. In this case SIGPENDING won't
be set because signal_pending() is already set (see wants_signal), and
this means that T won't notice this signal.

Oleg.


  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-01 16:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-01 15:03 Jens Axboe
2020-10-01 16:27 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2020-10-01 17:27   ` Jens Axboe
     [not found]   ` <20201002133813.3180-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2020-10-02 13:44     ` 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=20201001162719.GD13633@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC v2] kernel: decouple TASK_WORK TWA_SIGNAL handling from signals' \
    /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

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).