[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m11wimn6tx.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:34:18 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] make kthread_stop() scalable
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:
> On 04/13, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:
>>
>> > It's a shame kthread_stop() (may take a while!) runs with a global semaphore
>> > held. With this patch kthread() allocates all neccesary data (struct
> kthread)
>> > on its own stack, globals kthread_stop_xxx are deleted.
>>
>> Oleg so fare you patches have been inspiring. However..
>>
>> > HACKS:
>> >
>> > - re-use task_struct->set_child_tid to point to "struct kthread"
>>
>> task_struct->vfork_done is a better cannidate.
>>
>> > - use do_exit() directly to preserve "struct kthread" on stack
>>
>> Calling do_exit directly like that is not a hack, as it appears the preferred
>> way to exit is to call do_exit, or complete_and_exit.
>>
>> While this does improve the scalability and remove a global variable. It
>> also introduces a complex special case in the form of struct kthread.
>
> I can't say I agree. I thought it is good to have a struct which represents
> a kernel thread. Actually, I thought we can have __kthread_create() which
> returns "struct kthread". May be I am wrong, because yes, ->set_child_tid can
> point right to completion, and we can use some TIF flag instead of
> ->should_stop.
> This needs to update a lot of include/asm/ files.
Yes it does.
This is where I was going beyond what you were doing. I needed a flag to say
that this a kthread that is stopping to test in recalc_sigpending. To be certain
of terminating interruptible sleeps. I could not get at your struct kthread
in that case.
If it wasn't for the wait_event_interruptible thing I likely would
have just thrown a union in struct task_struct.
I also got lucky in that vfork_done is designed to point a completion
just where I need it (when a task exits). The name is now a little
abused but otherwise it does just what I want it to.
>> It also doesn't solve the biggest problem with the current kthread interface
>> in that calling kthread_stop does not cause the code to break out of
>> interruptible sleeps.
>
> Hm? kthread_stop() does wake_up_process(), it wakes up TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE tasks.
Yes. But if they are looping, unless signal_pending is set it is quite possible
they will go back to sleep.
Take for example:
> #define __wait_event_interruptible(wq, condition, ret) \
> do { \
> DEFINE_WAIT(__wait); \
> \
> for (;;) { \
> prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); \
> if (condition) \
> break; \
> if (!signal_pending(current)) { \
> schedule(); \
> continue; \
> } \
> ret = -ERESTARTSYS; \
> break; \
> } \
> finish_wait(&wq, &__wait); \
> } while (0)
We don't break out until either condition is true or signal_pending(current)
is true.
Loops that do that are very common in the kernel. I counted about 500
calls of signal pending in places that otherwise care nothing about signals.
Several kernel threads call into functions that use loops like
wait_event_interruptible. So I need a more forceful kthread_stop. If
I don't want to continue to use signals.
>> > @@ -91,7 +105,7 @@ static void create_kthread(struct kthrea
>> >
>> > /* We want our own signal handler (we take no signals by default). */
>> > pid = kernel_thread(kthread, create, CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES | SIGCHLD);
>> > - create->result = pid;
>> > + create->result = ERR_PTR(pid);
>>
>> Ouch. You have a nasty race here.
>>
>> If kthread runs before kernel_thread returns then setting
>> "create->result = ERR_PTR(pid);" could easily stomp
>> "create->result = &self".
>
> Yes, thanks... Can't understand how I was soooo stupid!!! thanks...
>
> Damn. We don't need 2 completions! just one.
Yep. My second patch in this last round implements that.
> create_kthread:
>
> pid = kernel_thread(...);
> if (pid < 0) {
> create->result = ERR_PTR(pid);
> complete(create->started);
> }
> // else: kthread() will do complete()
>
> return;
Eric
-
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