[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wicXCNR1bBioaAiBqEDgv-CoQD9z2RsM2VOTPzkK0xr8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 10:08:04 -0500
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc: Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Linux kernel regressions list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
hch@...radead.org, stefanha@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
mst@...hat.com, sgarzare@...hat.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 8/8] vhost: use vhost_tasks for worker threads
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:39 AM Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> wrote:
>
> Jumping in here, as I found another problem with that patch: it broke
> s2idle on my laptop when a qemu-kvm VM is running, as freezing user
> space processes now fails for me:
Hmm. kthreads have PF_NOFREEZE by default, which is probably the reason.
Adding
current->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE;
to the vhost_task setup might just fix it, but it feels a bit off.
The way io_uring does this is to do
if (signal_pending(current)) {
struct ksignal ksig;
if (!get_signal(&ksig))
continue;
break;
}
in the main loop, which ends up handling the freezer situation too.
But it should handle things like SIGSTOP etc as well, and also exit on
actual signals.
I get the feeling that the whole "vhost_task_should_stop()" logic
should have the exact logic above, and basically make those threads
killable as well.
Hmm?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists