[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190725114359.GH4707@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:43:59 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
keescook@...omium.org, joel@...lfernandes.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
tj@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
luto@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cyphar@...har.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] pidfd: add CLONE_WAIT_PID
Or. We can change wait_consider_task() to not clear ->notask_error if
WXXX and the child is PF_WAIT_PID.
This way you can "safely" use wait() without WNOHANG, it won't block if
all the children which can report an even are PF_WAIT_PID.
But I do not understand your use-cases, I have no idea if this can help
or not. Just I think the more discussion is always better when we are
going to add the new API.
On 07/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 07/25, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:35:44PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I have to admit this feature looks a bit exotic to me...
> >
> > It might look like it from the kernels perspective but from the feedback
> > on this when presenting on this userspace has real usecases for this.
>
> OK...
>
> but then perhaps we can make PF_WAIT_PID more flexible.
>
> Say, we can add the new WXXX wait option and change eligible_child()
>
> if ((p->flags & PF_WAIT_PID) && (wo->options & WXXX))
> return 0;
>
> this way the parent can tell waitid() whether the PF_WAIT_PID tasks should
> be filtered or not.
>
> And if we do this we can even add PR_SET_WAIT_PID/PR_CLR_WAIT_PID instead
> of the new CLONE_ flag.
>
> Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists