[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070409090643.GA121@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:06:43 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/3] introduce SYS_CLONE_MASK
On 04/08, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:
>
> > Perhaps it is better to add reparent_kthread() (next patch) to kthread()
> > and forget about CLONE_KERNEL_THREAD.
>
> Please.
OK, will do tomorrow.
> > Anyway, re-parenting to swapper breaks pstree, it doesn't show kernel
> > threads. And if ->parent == /sbin/init, we can't remove us from ->children
> > (unless we forbid sub-thread-of-init exec). So the only safe change is
> > set ->exit_state = -1.
>
> Yes. We certainly need ->exit_state = -1.
> Earlier I had forgotten about second the use of ->children to update
> the parent pointer of processes when their parent exits.
>
> There is a practical question how much we care about pstree being
> confused (I assume it doesn't crash). If this is just a confusion
> issue then I say go for it. PPID == 0 is a very legitimate way to say
> the kernel is the parent process.
No, it doesn't crash. It just doesn't show kernel threads (ps ax is OK).
I didn't look into the sources, but I guess the reason is that pstree
assumes that the "root" of the tree is "pid == 1" process.
I personally think this is acceptable (and Roland seems to think the same).
Still, to be safe, I'll break this into 2 patches, the first one sets
->exit_state, the second re-parents to swapper.
In fact, we can do some odd things to make pstree happy. We need ->parent
only because /proc needs some ->parent fields. But I'd prefer to avoid
these hacks.
Still, it is sad that we can't have additional flags for kernel_thread().
However, I agree with your and Roland's objections.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists