From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@poettering.net>,
Daan De Meyer <daan.j.demeyer@gmail.com>,
Mike Yuan <me@yhndnzj.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] pidfs: improve multi-threaded exec and premature thread-group leader exit polling
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:02:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250320140159.GD11256@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250320-erzwungen-adjektiv-6a73b88f5f30@brauner>
On 03/20, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> What you seem to be saying is that you want all references to
> PIDFD_THREAD to be dropped in the comments because the behavior is now
> identical.
yes, to me the references to PIDFD_THREAD look as if PIDFD_THREAD
has some subtle differences in behavior.
With or without PIDFD_THREAD, do_notify_pidfd() is called and pidfd_poll()
returns EPOLLIN when this thread (leader or not) is ready for wait() from
the parent or debugger.
But!
> So I'm wiping the comments but I very much disagree that they are
> misleading/useless.
No, if you don't agree than do not remove the comments ;)
And... can you explain the motivation for this patch?
I mean... Again, the current PIDFD_THREAD/group-leader behavior is
not well defined, this is clear.
But if user-space does sys_pidfd_open(group_leader_pid) and needs the
"correct" EPOLLIN when the whole process exits, then it should not use
PIDFD_THREAD ?
Just in case, I am not arguing, I am just trying to understand.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-20 14:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-20 9:29 [PATCH v3 0/4] pidfs: handle multi-threaded exec and premature thread-group leader exit Christian Brauner
2025-03-20 9:29 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] pidfs: improve multi-threaded exec and premature thread-group leader exit polling Christian Brauner
2025-03-20 10:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-03-20 11:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-03-20 13:16 ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-20 12:36 ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-20 14:02 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2025-03-20 14:32 ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-20 9:29 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] selftests/pidfd: first test for multi-threaded exec polling Christian Brauner
2025-03-20 9:29 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] selftests/pidfd: second " Christian Brauner
2025-03-20 9:29 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] selftests/pidfd: third " 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=20250320140159.GD11256@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=daan.j.demeyer@gmail.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=lennart@poettering.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@yhndnzj.com \
/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.