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;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jan 2022 08:30:43 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>,
        Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        seanjc@google.com, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        dmatlack@google.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: Move VM's worker kthreads back to the original
 cgroups before exiting.
Message-ID: <YehY0z2vHYVZk52J@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20211222225350.1912249-1-vipinsh@google.com>
 <20220105180420.GC6464@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <CAHVum0e84nUcGtdPYQaJDQszKj-QVP5gM+nteBpSTaQ2sWYpmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yeclbe3GNdCMLlHz@slm.duckdns.org>
 <7a0bc562-9f25-392d-5c05-9dbcd350d002@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7a0bc562-9f25-392d-5c05-9dbcd350d002@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 07:02:53PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 1/18/22 21:39, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > So, these are normally driven by the !populated events. That's how everyone
> > else is doing it. If you want to tie the kvm workers lifetimes to kvm
> > process, wouldn't it be cleaner to do so from kvm side? ie. let kvm process
> > exit wait for the workers to be cleaned up.
> 
> It does.  For example kvm_mmu_post_init_vm's call to
> kvm_vm_create_worker_thread is matched with the call to
> kthread_stop in kvm_mmu_pre_destroy_vm.
> According to Vpin, the problem is that there's a small amount of time
> between the return from kthread_stop and the point where the cgroup
> can be removed.  My understanding of the race is the following:

Okay, this is because kthread_stop piggy backs on vfork_done to wait for the
task exit intead of the usual exit notification, so it only waits till
exit_mm(), which is uhh... weird. So, migrating is one option, I guess,
albeit a rather ugly one. It'd be nicer if we can make kthread_stop()
waiting more regular but I couldn't find a good existing place and routing
the usual parent signaling might be too complicated. Anyone has better
ideas?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun