Date:   Sat, 11 Feb 2023 23:05:35 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API Mailing List <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Samba Technical <samba-technical@lists.samba.org>,
        ming.lei@redhat.com
Subject: Re: copy on write for splice() from file to pipe?
Message-ID: <Y+euv+zR5ltTELqk@T590>
References: <CAHk-=wiszt6btMPeT5UFcS=0=EVr=0injTR75KsvN8WetwQwkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe8252bd-17bd-850d-dcd0-d799443681e9@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wiJ0QKKiORkVr8n345sPp=aHbrLTLu6CQ-S0XqWJ-kJ1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a2e5b7f-c213-09ff-ef35-d6c2967b31a7@kernel.dk>
 <CALCETrVx4cj7KrhaevtFN19rf=A6kauFTr7UPzQVage0MsBLrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <b44783e6-3da2-85dd-a482-5d9aeb018e9c@kernel.dk>
 <2bb12591-9d24-6b26-178f-05e939bf3251@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wjzqrD5wrfeaU390bXEEBY2JF-oKmFN4fREzgyXsbQRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+cJDnnMuirSjO3E@T590>
 <55eaac9e-0d77-1fa2-df27-4d64e123177e@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55eaac9e-0d77-1fa2-df27-4d64e123177e@kernel.dk>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 07:13:44AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/10/23 8:18?PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 02:08:35PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:51 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Speaking of splice/io_uring, Ming posted this today:
> >>>
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20230210153212.733006-1-ming.lei@redhat.com/
> >>
> >> Ugh. Some of that is really ugly. Both 'ignore_sig' and
> >> 'ack_page_consuming' just look wrong. Pure random special cases.
> >>
> >> And that 'ignore_sig' is particularly ugly, since the only thing that
> >> sets it also sets SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK.
> >>
> >> And the *only* thing that actually then checks that field is
> >> 'splice_from_pipe_next()', where there are exactly two
> >> signal_pending() checks that it adds to, and
> >>
> >>  (a) the first one is to protect from endless loops
> >>
> >>  (b) the second one is irrelevant when  SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK is set
> >>
> >> So honestly, just NAK on that series.
> >>
> >> I think that instead of 'ignore_sig' (which shouldn't exist), that
> >> first 'signal_pending()' check in splice_from_pipe_next() should just
> >> be changed into a 'fatal_signal_pending()'.
> > 
> > Good point, here the signal is often from task_work_add() called by
> > io_uring.
> 
> Usually you'd use task_sigpending() to distinguis the two, but
> fatal_signal_pending() as Linus suggests would also work. The only
> concern here is that since you'll be potentially blocking on waiting for
> the pipe to be readable - if task does indeed have task_work pending and
> that very task_work is the one that will ensure that the pipe is now
> readable, then you're waiting condition will never be satisfied.

The 2nd signal_pending() will break the loop to get task_work handled,
so it is safe to only change the 1st one to fatal_signal_pending().


Thanks,
Ming