search for: pf_user_worker

...requires CLONE_SIGHAND which requires those 2 signals to be supported. This is a modified version of the patch written by Mike Christie <michael.christie at oracle.com> which was a modified version of patch originally written by Linus. Much of what depended upon PF_IO_WORKER now depends on PF_USER_WORKER. Including ignoring signals, setting up the register state, and having get_signal return instead of calling do_group_exit. Tidied up the vhost_task abstraction so that the definition of vhost_task only needs to be visible inside of vhost_task.c. Making it easier to review the code and tell what n...

Hi Mike, sorry, but somehow I can't understand this patch... I'll try to read it with a fresh head on Weekend, but for example, On 06/01, Mike Christie wrote: > > static int vhost_task_fn(void *data) > { > struct vhost_task *vtsk = data; > - int ret; > + bool dead = false; > + > + for (;;) { > + bool did_work; > + > + /* mb paired w/

The following patches made over Linus's tree fix the 2 bugs: 1. vhost worker task shows up as a process forked from the parent that did VHOST_SET_OWNER ioctl instead of a process under root/kthreadd. This was causing breaking scripts. 2. vhost_tasks didn't disable or add support for freeze requests. The following patches fix these issues by making the vhost_task task a thread under the

...However, I think it better shows what >> >> Just to summarize the core idea behind my proposal is that no signal >> handling changes are needed unless there's a bug in the current way >> io_uring workers already work. All that should be needed is >> s/PF_IO_WORKER/PF_USER_WORKER/ in signal.c. [...] >> So it feels like this should be achievable by adding a callback to >> struct vhost_worker that get's called when vhost_worker() gets SIGKILL >> and that all the users of vhost workers are forced to implement. >> >> Yes, it is more work but I...

...gt;>>> >>>> Just to summarize the core idea behind my proposal is that no signal >>>> handling changes are needed unless there's a bug in the current way >>>> io_uring workers already work. All that should be needed is >>>> s/PF_IO_WORKER/PF_USER_WORKER/ in signal.c. >> [...] >>>> So it feels like this should be achievable by adding a callback to >>>> struct vhost_worker that get's called when vhost_worker() gets SIGKILL >>>> and that all the users of vhost workers are forced to implement. >>>...

...tter shows what >>>> Just to summarize the core idea behind my proposal is that no signal >>>> handling changes are needed unless there's a bug in the current way >>>> io_uring workers already work. All that should be needed is >>>> s/PF_IO_WORKER/PF_USER_WORKER/ in signal.c. >> [...] >>>> So it feels like this should be achievable by adding a callback to >>>> struct vhost_worker that get's called when vhost_worker() gets SIGKILL >>>> and that all the users of vhost workers are forced to implement. >>>...

...t a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c > index ed4e01daccaa..9e04ab5c3946 100644 > --- a/kernel/fork.c > +++ b/kernel/fork.c > @@ -2338,14 +2338,10 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process( > p->flags |= PF_KTHREAD; > if (args->user_worker) > p->flags |= PF_USER_WORKER; > - if (args->io_thread) { > - /* > - * Mark us an IO worker, and block any signal that isn't > - * fatal or STOP > - */ > + if (args->io_thread) > p->flags |= PF_IO_WORKER; > + if (args->block_signals) > siginitsetinv(&p->blocked, sig...