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;
Message-ID: <26c87be0-8e19-d677-a51b-e6821e6f7ae4@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 13:22:22 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fork, vhost: Use CLONE_THREAD to fix freezer/ps
 regression
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux@leemhuis.info, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, mst@redhat.com,
        sgarzare@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, brauner@kernel.org
References: <20230522025124.5863-1-michael.christie@oracle.com>
 <20230522025124.5863-4-michael.christie@oracle.com>
 <20230522123029.GA22159@redhat.com>
 <cfca7764-d210-6df9-e182-2c093101c6cf@oracle.com>
 <20230522174757.GC22159@redhat.com> <20230523121506.GA6562@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230523121506.GA6562@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2023/5/23 20:15, Oleg Nesterov 写道:
> On 05/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> Right now I think that "int dead" should die,
> No, probably we shouldn't call get_signal() if we have already dequeued SIGKILL.
>
>> but let me think tomorrow.
> May be something like this... I don't like it but I can't suggest anything better
> right now.
>
> 	bool killed = false;
>
> 	for (;;) {
> 		...
> 	
> 		node = llist_del_all(&worker->work_list);
> 		if (!node) {
> 			schedule();
> 			/*
> 			 * When we get a SIGKILL our release function will
> 			 * be called. That will stop new IOs from being queued
> 			 * and check for outstanding cmd responses. It will then
> 			 * call vhost_task_stop to tell us to return and exit.
> 			 */
> 			if (signal_pending(current)) {
> 				struct ksignal ksig;
>
> 				if (!killed)
> 					killed = get_signal(&ksig);
>
> 				clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> 			}
>
> 			continue;
> 		}
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> But let me ask a couple of questions. Let's forget this patch, let's look at the
> current code:
>
> 		node = llist_del_all(&worker->work_list);
> 		if (!node)
> 			schedule();
>
> 		node = llist_reverse_order(node);
> 		... process works ...
>
> To me this looks a bit confusing. Shouldn't we do
>
> 		if (!node) {
> 			schedule();
> 			continue;
> 		}
>
> just to make the code a bit more clear? If node == NULL then
> llist_reverse_order() and llist_for_each_entry_safe() will do nothing.
> But this is minor.


Yes.


>
>
>
> 		/* make sure flag is seen after deletion */
> 		smp_wmb();
> 		llist_for_each_entry_safe(work, work_next, node, node) {
> 			clear_bit(VHOST_WORK_QUEUED, &work->flags);
>
> I am not sure about smp_wmb + clear_bit. Once we clear VHOST_WORK_QUEUED,
> vhost_work_queue() can add this work again and change work->node->next.
>
> That is why we use _safe, but we need to ensure that llist_for_each_safe()
> completes LOAD(work->node->next) before VHOST_WORK_QUEUED is cleared.


This should be fine since store is not speculated, so work->node->next 
needs to be loaded before VHOST_WORK_QUEUED is cleared to meet the loop 
condition.


> So it seems that smp_wmb() can't help and should be removed, instead we need
>
> 		llist_for_each_entry_safe(...) {
> 			smp_mb__before_atomic();
> 			clear_bit(VHOST_WORK_QUEUED, &work->flags);
>
> Also, if the work->fn pointer is not stable, we should read it before
> smp_mb__before_atomic() as well.


The fn won't be changed after it is initialized.


>
> No?
>
>
> 			__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>
> Why do we set TASK_RUNNING inside the loop? Does this mean that work->fn()
> can return with current->state != RUNNING ?


It is because the state were set to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in the beginning 
of the loop otherwise it might be side effect while executing work->fn().


>
>
> 			work->fn(work);
>
> Now the main question. Whatever we do, SIGKILL/SIGSTOP/etc can come right
> before we call work->fn(). Is it "safe" to run this callback with
> signal_pending() or fatal_signal_pending() ?


It looks safe since:

1) vhost hold refcnt of the mm
2) release will sync with the worker


>
>
> Finally. I never looked into drivers/vhost/ before so I don't understand
> this code at all, but let me ask anyway... Can we change vhost_dev_flush()
> to run the pending callbacks rather than wait for vhost_worker() ?
> I guess we can't, ->mm won't be correct, but can you confirm?


Yes.

Thanks


>
> Oleg.
>