[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zo1ntduTPiF8Gmfl@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:39:17 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Julian Orth <ju.orth@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: rerun task_work while freezing in
get_signal()
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 03:05:21PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Either way I have no idea whether a cgroup_task_frozen() task should
> > react to task_work_add(TWA_SIGNAL) or not.
> >
> > Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst says
> >
> > Writing "1" to the file causes freezing of the cgroup and all
> > descendant cgroups. This means that all belonging processes will
> > be stopped and will not run until the cgroup will be explicitly
> > unfrozen.
> >
> > AFAICS this is not accurate, they can run but can't return to user-mode.
> > So I guess task_work_run() is fine.
>
> IIUC it's a user facing doc, so maybe it's accurate enough from that
> perspective. But I do agree that the semantics around task_work is
> not exactly clear.
A good correctness test for cgroup freezer is whether it'd be safe to
snapshot and restore the tasks in the cgroup while frozen. If that works,
it's most likely fine.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists