[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ab8c9f95-c9e9-de04-4e28-78163a32da80@leemhuis.info>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:58:38 +0200
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: oleg@...hat.com, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, mst@...hat.com,
sgarzare@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
Linux kernel regressions list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
hch@...radead.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] vhost_tasks: Use CLONE_THREAD/SIGHAND
On 19.05.23 14:15, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:25:11AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 07:09:12PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>>> This patch allows the vhost and vhost_task code to use CLONE_THREAD,
>>> CLONE_SIGHAND and CLONE_FILES. It's a RFC because I didn't do all the
>>> normal testing, haven't coverted vsock and vdpa, and I know you guys
>>> will not like the first patch. However, I think it better shows what
>>
>> Just to summarize the core idea behind my proposal is that no signal
>> handling changes are needed unless there's a bug in the current way
>> io_uring workers already work. All that should be needed is
>> s/PF_IO_WORKER/PF_USER_WORKER/ in signal.c.
[...]
>> So it feels like this should be achievable by adding a callback to
>> struct vhost_worker that get's called when vhost_worker() gets SIGKILL
>> and that all the users of vhost workers are forced to implement.
>>
>> Yes, it is more work but I think that's the right thing to do and not to
>> complicate our signal handling.
>>
>> Worst case if this can't be done fast enough we'll have to revert the
>> vhost parts. I think the user worker parts are mostly sane and are
>
> As mentioned, if we can't settle this cleanly before -rc4 we should
> revert the vhost parts unless Linus wants to have it earlier.
Meanwhile -rc5 is just a few days away and there are still a lot of
discussions in the patch-set proposed to address the issues[1]. Which is
kinda great (albeit also why I haven't given it a spin yet), but on the
other hand makes we wonder:
Is it maybe time to revert the vhost parts for 6.4 and try again next cycle?
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230522025124.5863-1-michael.christie@oracle.com/
Ciao, Thorsten "not sure if I'm asking because I'm affected, or because
it's my duty as regression tracker" Leemhuis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists