Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-112396-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <tencent_2A5F9506756CD0DC2443BA00339BDFCF3306@qq.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:30:24 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] exit: move trace_sched_process_exit earlier in
 do_exit()
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
 Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <tencent_277EBFCF545587D4FD41EF932AE972CC6708@qq.com>
 <20240319145718.2bfb0d526ff441c8b37eab09@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Wen Yang <wenyang.linux@foxmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240319145718.2bfb0d526ff441c8b37eab09@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2024/3/20 05:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 13:25:29 +0800 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.
> 
> If userspace is awaiting this notification to say "it's now OK to read
> the dump file" then it could break things?
> 

Thanks for your comments.

This could also be achieved in the nearby proc_exit_connector().

In addition, this issue has been discussed in detail in the following link:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/2/23/1018


>> Move trace_sched_process_exit() earlier in do_exit().
>> This way a user-space monitor could detect the exits and
>> potentially make some preparations in advance.
>>
>> Oleg initially proposed this suggestion, and Steven further provided some
>> detailed suggestions, and Mathieu carefully checked the historical code
>> and said:
>> : I've checked with Matthew Khouzam (maintainer of Trace Compass)
>> : which care about this tracepoint, and we have not identified any
>> : significant impact of moving it on its model of the scheduler, other
>> : than slightly changing its timing.
>> : I've also checked quickly in lttng-analyses and have not found
>> : any code that care about its specific placement.
>> : So I would say go ahead and move it earlier in do_exit(), it's
>> : fine by me.
> 
> I'm not seeing a clear need for this change.  "maybe inconveniant" is
> quite thin.  Please fully describe what motivated you to work on this?
> 

Thanks.
We hope to address this issue in our Advanced Driver Assistance System:
When certain critical processes exit abnormally, prompt information can 
be reported to the monitoring program as soon as possible.

We have also attempted to add a new TP, as follows:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/2/23/5

But after some discussion, it is still considered more reasonable to 
move trace_sched_process_exit() earlier.

We also look forward to your suggestions, thanks again.


--
Best wishes,
Wen