Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230202232517.8695-1-michael.christie@oracle.com>
 <20230202232517.8695-9-michael.christie@oracle.com> <aba6cca4-e66c-768f-375c-b38c8ba5e8a8@6wind.com>
 <CAHk-=wgadfsCnKHLON7op=Qs5t3w3PVz5ZDbvbKsfb=yBg=yjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <78c5e150-26cf-7724-74ee-4a0b16b944b1@oracle.com> <48842e92-835e-bc3f-7118-48b8f415f532@leemhuis.info>
 <CAHk-=wicXCNR1bBioaAiBqEDgv-CoQD9z2RsM2VOTPzkK0xr8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230515-vollrausch-liebgeworden-2765f3ca3540@brauner> <CAHk-=wgXJ5VS1iBkfsG=HDjsyhn5XYDKt5xhQcNuz-e7VKyg8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <122b597e-a5fa-daf7-27bb-6f04fa98d496@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <122b597e-a5fa-daf7-27bb-6f04fa98d496@oracle.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2023 15:54:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgTpRDwS+F0Gd6+bM+TEh+x4Aiz8EBDTnTm3Q4TFdWOww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 8/8] vhost: use vhost_tasks for worker threads
To:     Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>,
        nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com,
        Linux kernel regressions list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
        hch@infradead.org, stefanha@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com,
        mst@redhat.com, sgarzare@redhat.com,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        konrad.wilk@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 3:23=E2=80=AFPM Mike Christie
<michael.christie@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> The vhost layer really doesn't want any signals and wants to work like kt=
hreads
> for that case. To make it really simple can we do something like this whe=
re it
> separates user and io worker behavior where the major diff is how they ha=
ndle
> signals and exit. I also included a fix for the freeze case:

I don't love the SIGKILL special case, but I also don't find this
deeply offensive. So if this is what it takes, I'm ok with it.

I wonder if we could make that special case simply check for "is
SIGKILL blocked" instead? No normal case will cause that, and it means
that a PF_USER_WORKER thread could decide per-thread what it wants to
do wrt SIGKILL.

Christian? And I guess we should Cc: Oleg too, since the signal parts
are an area he's familiar with and has worked on.. Eric Biederman has
already been on the list and has also been involved

Oleg: see

  https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/122b597e-a5fa-daf7-27bb-6f04fa98d496@oracle.=
com/

for the context here.

              Linus