Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Allow signals for IO threads
To:     Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210326003928.978750-1-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <e6de934a-a794-f173-088d-a140d0645188@samba.org>
 <f2c93b75-a18b-fc2c-7941-9208c19869c1@kernel.dk>
 <8efd9977-003b-be65-8ae2-4b04d8dd1224@samba.org>
 <0c91d9e7-82cd-bec2-19ae-cc592ec757c6@kernel.dk>
 <bfaae5fd-5de9-bae4-89b6-2d67bbfb86c6@kernel.dk>
 <66fa3cfc-4161-76fe-272e-160097f32a53@kernel.dk>
 <67a83ad5-1a94-39e5-34c7-6b2192eb7edb@samba.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <a6f5f10b-b4f7-6674-79f0-31b14cfe3533@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:50:03 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <67a83ad5-1a94-39e5-34c7-6b2192eb7edb@samba.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/26/21 8:43 AM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> Am 26.03.21 um 15:38 schrieb Jens Axboe:
>> On 3/26/21 7:59 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 3/26/21 7:54 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> The KILL after STOP deadlock still exists.
>>>>
>>>> In which tree? Sounds like you're still on the old one with that
>>>> incremental you sent, which wasn't complete.
>>>>
>>>>> Does io_wq_manager() exits without cleaning up on SIGKILL?
>>>>
>>>> No, it should kill up in all cases. I'll try your stop + kill, I just
>>>> tested both of them separately and didn't observe anything. I also ran
>>>> your io_uring-cp example (and found a bug in the example, fixed and
>>>> pushed), fwiw.
>>>
>>> I can reproduce this one! I'll take a closer look.
>>
>> OK, that one is actually pretty straight forward - we rely on cleaning
>> up on exit, but for fatal cases, get_signal() will call do_exit() for us
>> and never return. So we might need a special case in there to deal with
>> that, or some other way of ensuring that fatal signal gets processed
>> correctly for IO threads.
> 
> And if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) doesn't prevent get_signal()
> from being called?

Usually yes, but this case is first doing SIGSTOP, so we're waiting in
get_signal() -> do_signal_stop() when the SIGKILL arrives. Hence there's
no way to catch it in the worker themselves.

-- 
Jens Axboe