On 6/1/23 5:47 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:> On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:58:38AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 19.05.23 14:15, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:25:11AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 07:09:12PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>>>>> This patch allows the vhost and vhost_task code to use
CLONE_THREAD,
>>>>> CLONE_SIGHAND and CLONE_FILES. It's a RFC because I
didn't do all the
>>>>> normal testing, haven't coverted vsock and vdpa, and I
know you guys
>>>>> will not like the first patch. 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 think that's the right thing to
do and not to
>>>> complicate our signal handling.
>>>>
>>>> Worst case if this can't be done fast enough we'll have
to revert the
>>>> vhost parts. I think the user worker parts are mostly sane and
are
>>> As mentioned, if we can't settle this cleanly before -rc4 we
should
>>> revert the vhost parts unless Linus wants to have it earlier.
>> Meanwhile -rc5 is just a few days away and there are still a lot of
>> discussions in the patch-set proposed to address the issues[1]. Which
is
>> kinda great (albeit also why I haven't given it a spin yet), but on
the
>> other hand makes we wonder:
> You might've missed it in the thread but it seems everyone is currently
> operating under the assumption that the preferred way is to fix this is
> rather than revert. See the mail in [1]:
>
> "So I'd really like to finish this. Even if we end up with a hack
or
> two in signal handling that we can hopefully fix up later by having
> vhost fix up some of its current assumptions."
>
> which is why no revert was send for -rc4. And there's a temporary fix
we
> seem to have converged on.
>
> @Mike, do you want to prepare an updated version of the temporary fix.
> If @Linus prefers to just apply it directly he can just grab it from the
> list rather than delaying it. Make sure to grab a Co-developed-by line
> on this, @Mike.
Yes, I'll send it within a couple hours.
