All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, dancol@google.com, sspatil@google.com,
	jannh@google.com, surenb@google.com, timmurray@google.com,
	Jonathan Kowalski <bl0pbl33p@gmail.com>,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, kernel-team@android.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 18:24:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190428162405.GA6757@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190425222359.sqhboc4x4daznr6r@brauner.io>

Thanks for cc'ing me...

On 04/26, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 03:00:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > +static unsigned int pidfd_poll(struct file *file, struct poll_table_struct *pts)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *task;
> > +	struct pid *pid;
> > +	int poll_flags = 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * tasklist_lock must be held because to avoid racing with
> > +	 * changes in exit_state and wake up. Basically to avoid:
> > +	 *
> > +	 * P0: read exit_state = 0
> > +	 * P1: write exit_state = EXIT_DEAD
> > +	 * P1: Do a wake up - wq is empty, so do nothing
> > +	 * P0: Queue for polling - wait forever.
> > +	 */
> > +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > +	pid = file->private_data;
> > +	task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(task && !thread_group_leader(task));
> > +
> > +	if (!task || (task->exit_state && thread_group_empty(task)))
> > +		poll_flags = POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;

Joel, I still can't understand why do we need tasklist... and I don't really
understand the comment. The code looks as if you are trying to avoid poll_wait(),
but this would be strange.

OK, why can't pidfd_poll() do

	poll_wait(file, &pid->wait_pidfd, pts);

	rcu_read_lock();
	task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
	if (!task || task->exit_state && thread_group_empty(task))
		poll_flags = POLLIN | ...;
	rcu_read_unlock();

	return poll_flags;

?

> > +static void do_notify_pidfd(struct task_struct *task)
>
> Maybe a short command that this helper can only be called when we know
> that task is a thread-group leader wouldn't hurt so there's no confusion
> later.

Not really. If the task is traced, do_notify_parent() (and thus do_notify_pidfd())
can be called to notify the debugger even if the task is not a leader and/or if
it is not the last thread. The latter means a spurious wakeup for pidfd_poll().

> > +{
> > +	struct pid *pid;
> > +
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&tasklist_lock);
> > +
> > +	pid = get_task_pid(task, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > +	wake_up_all(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> > +	put_pid(pid);

Why get/put?

Oleg.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: oleg at redhat.com (Oleg Nesterov)
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 18:24:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190428162405.GA6757@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190425222359.sqhboc4x4daznr6r@brauner.io>

Thanks for cc'ing me...

On 04/26, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 03:00:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > +static unsigned int pidfd_poll(struct file *file, struct poll_table_struct *pts)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *task;
> > +	struct pid *pid;
> > +	int poll_flags = 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * tasklist_lock must be held because to avoid racing with
> > +	 * changes in exit_state and wake up. Basically to avoid:
> > +	 *
> > +	 * P0: read exit_state = 0
> > +	 * P1: write exit_state = EXIT_DEAD
> > +	 * P1: Do a wake up - wq is empty, so do nothing
> > +	 * P0: Queue for polling - wait forever.
> > +	 */
> > +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > +	pid = file->private_data;
> > +	task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(task && !thread_group_leader(task));
> > +
> > +	if (!task || (task->exit_state && thread_group_empty(task)))
> > +		poll_flags = POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;

Joel, I still can't understand why do we need tasklist... and I don't really
understand the comment. The code looks as if you are trying to avoid poll_wait(),
but this would be strange.

OK, why can't pidfd_poll() do

	poll_wait(file, &pid->wait_pidfd, pts);

	rcu_read_lock();
	task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
	if (!task || task->exit_state && thread_group_empty(task))
		poll_flags = POLLIN | ...;
	rcu_read_unlock();

	return poll_flags;

?

> > +static void do_notify_pidfd(struct task_struct *task)
>
> Maybe a short command that this helper can only be called when we know
> that task is a thread-group leader wouldn't hurt so there's no confusion
> later.

Not really. If the task is traced, do_notify_parent() (and thus do_notify_pidfd())
can be called to notify the debugger even if the task is not a leader and/or if
it is not the last thread. The latter means a spurious wakeup for pidfd_poll().

> > +{
> > +	struct pid *pid;
> > +
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&tasklist_lock);
> > +
> > +	pid = get_task_pid(task, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > +	wake_up_all(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> > +	put_pid(pid);

Why get/put?

Oleg.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: oleg@redhat.com (Oleg Nesterov)
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 18:24:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190428162405.GA6757@redhat.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190428162406.TMyYW-e0LZxwe0TEJAC0cmQKtCCJW-2cCXNrS2vL7_w@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190425222359.sqhboc4x4daznr6r@brauner.io>

Thanks for cc'ing me...

On 04/26, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019@03:00:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > +static unsigned int pidfd_poll(struct file *file, struct poll_table_struct *pts)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *task;
> > +	struct pid *pid;
> > +	int poll_flags = 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * tasklist_lock must be held because to avoid racing with
> > +	 * changes in exit_state and wake up. Basically to avoid:
> > +	 *
> > +	 * P0: read exit_state = 0
> > +	 * P1: write exit_state = EXIT_DEAD
> > +	 * P1: Do a wake up - wq is empty, so do nothing
> > +	 * P0: Queue for polling - wait forever.
> > +	 */
> > +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > +	pid = file->private_data;
> > +	task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(task && !thread_group_leader(task));
> > +
> > +	if (!task || (task->exit_state && thread_group_empty(task)))
> > +		poll_flags = POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;

Joel, I still can't understand why do we need tasklist... and I don't really
understand the comment. The code looks as if you are trying to avoid poll_wait(),
but this would be strange.

OK, why can't pidfd_poll() do

	poll_wait(file, &pid->wait_pidfd, pts);

	rcu_read_lock();
	task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
	if (!task || task->exit_state && thread_group_empty(task))
		poll_flags = POLLIN | ...;
	rcu_read_unlock();

	return poll_flags;

?

> > +static void do_notify_pidfd(struct task_struct *task)
>
> Maybe a short command that this helper can only be called when we know
> that task is a thread-group leader wouldn't hurt so there's no confusion
> later.

Not really. If the task is traced, do_notify_parent() (and thus do_notify_pidfd())
can be called to notify the debugger even if the task is not a leader and/or if
it is not the last thread. The latter means a spurious wakeup for pidfd_poll().

> > +{
> > +	struct pid *pid;
> > +
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&tasklist_lock);
> > +
> > +	pid = get_task_pid(task, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > +	wake_up_all(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> > +	put_pid(pid);

Why get/put?

Oleg.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, dancol@google.com, sspatil@google.com,
	jannh@google.com, surenb@google.com, timmurray@google.com,
	Jonathan Kowalski <bl0pbl33p@gmail.com>,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, kernel-team@android.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 18:24:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190428162405.GA6757@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190425222359.sqhboc4x4daznr6r@brauner.io>

Thanks for cc'ing me...

On 04/26, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 03:00:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > +static unsigned int pidfd_poll(struct file *file, struct poll_table_struct *pts)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *task;
> > +	struct pid *pid;
> > +	int poll_flags = 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * tasklist_lock must be held because to avoid racing with
> > +	 * changes in exit_state and wake up. Basically to avoid:
> > +	 *
> > +	 * P0: read exit_state = 0
> > +	 * P1: write exit_state = EXIT_DEAD
> > +	 * P1: Do a wake up - wq is empty, so do nothing
> > +	 * P0: Queue for polling - wait forever.
> > +	 */
> > +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > +	pid = file->private_data;
> > +	task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(task && !thread_group_leader(task));
> > +
> > +	if (!task || (task->exit_state && thread_group_empty(task)))
> > +		poll_flags = POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;

Joel, I still can't understand why do we need tasklist... and I don't really
understand the comment. The code looks as if you are trying to avoid poll_wait(),
but this would be strange.

OK, why can't pidfd_poll() do

	poll_wait(file, &pid->wait_pidfd, pts);

	rcu_read_lock();
	task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
	if (!task || task->exit_state && thread_group_empty(task))
		poll_flags = POLLIN | ...;
	rcu_read_unlock();

	return poll_flags;

?

> > +static void do_notify_pidfd(struct task_struct *task)
>
> Maybe a short command that this helper can only be called when we know
> that task is a thread-group leader wouldn't hurt so there's no confusion
> later.

Not really. If the task is traced, do_notify_parent() (and thus do_notify_pidfd())
can be called to notify the debugger even if the task is not a leader and/or if
it is not the last thread. The latter means a spurious wakeup for pidfd_poll().

> > +{
> > +	struct pid *pid;
> > +
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&tasklist_lock);
> > +
> > +	pid = get_task_pid(task, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > +	wake_up_all(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> > +	put_pid(pid);

Why get/put?

Oleg.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-04-28 16:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-25 19:00 [PATCH v1 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd joel
2019-04-25 19:00 ` Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-04-25 19:00 ` Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-04-25 19:00 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] Add selftests for pidfd polling joel
2019-04-25 19:00   ` Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-04-25 19:00   ` Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-04-25 20:00   ` tycho
2019-04-25 20:00     ` Tycho Andersen
2019-04-25 20:00     ` Tycho Andersen
2019-04-26 13:47     ` joel
2019-04-26 13:47       ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-26 13:47       ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-25 21:29   ` christian
2019-04-25 21:29     ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-25 21:29     ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-25 22:07     ` dancol
2019-04-25 22:07       ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-25 22:07       ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-26 17:26       ` joel
2019-04-26 17:26         ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-26 17:26         ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-26 19:35         ` dancol
2019-04-26 19:35           ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-26 19:35           ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-26 20:31           ` joel
2019-04-26 20:31             ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-26 20:31             ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-26 13:42     ` joel
2019-04-26 13:42       ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-26 13:42       ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-25 22:24 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd Christian Brauner
2019-04-25 22:24   ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-25 22:24   ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-25 22:24   ` christian
2019-04-26 14:23   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-26 14:23     ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-26 14:23     ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-26 14:23     ` joel
2019-04-26 15:21     ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-26 15:21       ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-26 15:21       ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-26 15:21       ` christian
2019-04-26 15:31       ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-26 15:31         ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-26 15:31         ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-26 15:31         ` christian
2019-04-28 16:24   ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2019-04-28 16:24     ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-28 16:24     ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-28 16:24     ` oleg
2019-04-29 14:02     ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-29 14:02       ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-29 14:02       ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-29 14:02       ` joel
2019-04-29 14:07       ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-29 14:07         ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-29 14:07         ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-29 14:07         ` joel
2019-04-29 14:25         ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-29 14:25           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-29 14:25           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-29 14:25           ` oleg
2019-04-29 14:20       ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-29 14:20         ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-29 14:20         ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-29 14:20         ` oleg
2019-04-29 16:32         ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-29 16:32           ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-29 16:32           ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-29 16:32           ` joel
2019-04-30 11:53           ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-30 11:53             ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-30 11:53             ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-30 11:53             ` oleg
2019-04-30 12:07             ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-30 12:07               ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-30 12:07               ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-04-30 12:07               ` oleg
2019-04-30 15:49             ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-30 15:49               ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-30 15:49               ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-30 15:49               ` joel
2019-04-26 14:58 ` christian
2019-04-26 14:58   ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-26 14:58   ` Christian Brauner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190428162405.GA6757@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bl0pbl33p@gmail.com \
    --cc=christian@brauner.io \
    --cc=dancol@google.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jann@thejh.net \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=sspatil@google.com \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=timmurray@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.