Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-71723-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:00:38 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: wenyang.linux@foxmail.com, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump debugging: add a tracepoint to report the
 coredumping
Message-ID: <20240219170038.GA710@redhat.com>
References: <tencent_5CD40341EC9384E9B7CC127EA5CF2655B408@qq.com>
 <20240217104924.GB10393@redhat.com>
 <20240219112926.77ac16f8@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240219112926.77ac16f8@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 02/19, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:49:24 +0100
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 02/17, wenyang.linux@foxmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Wen Yang <wenyang.linux@foxmail.com>
> > >
> > > Currently coredump_task_exit() takes some time to wait for the generation
> > > of the dump file. But if the user-space wants to receive a notification
> > > as soon as possible it maybe inconvenient.
> > >
> > > Add the new trace_sched_process_coredump() into coredump_task_exit(),
> > > this way a user-space monitor could easily wait for the exits and
> > > potentially make some preparations in advance.
> >
> > Can't comment, I never know when the new tracepoint will make sense.
> >
> > Stupid question. Can we simply shift trace_sched_process_exit() up
> > before coredump_task_exit() ?
>
> Reading the rest of the thread and looking at the code, we do have this:
>
> void __noreturn do_exit(long code)
> {
> 	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> 	int group_dead;
>
> [...]
> 	acct_collect(code, group_dead);
> 	if (group_dead)
> 		tty_audit_exit();
> 	audit_free(tsk);
>
> 	tsk->exit_code = code;
> 	taskstats_exit(tsk, group_dead);
>
> 	exit_mm();
>
> 	if (group_dead)
> 		acct_process();
> 	trace_sched_process_exit(tsk);
>
> There's a lot that happens before we trigger the above event.

and a lot after.

To me the current placement of trace_sched_process_exit() looks absolutely
random.

> I could
> imagine that there are users expecting those actions to have taken place by
> the time the event triggered. Like the "exit_mm()" call, as well as many
> others.
>
> I would be leery of moving that tracepoint.

And I agree. I am always scared of every user-visible change, simply
because it is user-visbible.

If it was not clear, I didn't try to nack this patch. I simply do not know
how people use the tracepoints and for what. Apart from debugging.

But if we add the new one into coredump_task_exit(), then we probably want
another one in ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT) ? It too can "take some time"
before the exiting task actually exits.

So I think this needs some discussion, and the changelog should probably say
more.

In short: I am glad you are here, I leave this to you and Wen ;)

Oleg.