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: <7449914a-1ae3-9ea8-b60b-f0314999b790@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:09:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory_hotplug: document the signal_pending() check
 in offline_pages()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20230711174050.603820-1-david@redhat.com>
 <ZK2/3Kq8VlDwcCpc@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <ZK2/3Kq8VlDwcCpc@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11.07.23 22:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 11-07-23 19:40:50, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Let's update the documentation that any signal is sufficient, and
>> add a comment that not only checking for fatal signals is historical
>> baggage: changing it now could break existing user space. although
>> unlikely.
>>
>> For example, when an app provides a custom SIGALRM handler and triggers
>> memory offlining, the timeout cmd would no longer stop memory offlining,
>> because SIGALRM would no longer be considered a fatal signal.
> 
> Yes, and it is likely goot to mention here that this is an antipattern
> for many other kernel operations like IO (e.g. write) but it is a long
> term behavior that somebody might depend on and it is safer to reflect
> the documentation to the realitity rather than other way around (which
> would be imho better).
> 

You mean adding something like

"Note that using signal_pending() instead of fatal_signal_pending() is 
an anti-pattern, but slowly deprecating that behavior to eventually 
change it in the far future is probably not worth the effort. If this 
ever becomes relevant for user-space, we might want to rethink."


Thanks!

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb