From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5E658C13 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 23:55:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A45ADCC for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:55:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1693439756; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dvpKwAUlH7l/3d38zTbznxnCgwvMBWdLNFevAQq2bAM=; b=LVXKM4pvrJqriiMyf5iXCkKeiIyymX5Gtw955WJdnsmAxpedPhMW3qYCQzjkrTnKs3h9n/ wGdFoZIZwc3Egy9vcgwgtGKi3l+dNKEoKeMfT7QRbkzaS6CzQ5eLEkM5MUHQCRVwSjm14w EIa+/qU9bEWUpiCmR/6/U7dTyxmQKqM= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-314-J_nW4K65N_eTtTQT6BXufA-1; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:55:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: J_nW4K65N_eTtTQT6BXufA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0E1080027F; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 23:55:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.45.224.26]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E0979A; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 23:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 01:55:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 01:54:59 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Yonghong Song Cc: Andrew Morton , Yonghong Song , "Eric W. Biederman" , Linus Torvalds , Daniel Borkmann , Kui-Feng Lee , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: fix the skip_if_dup_files check Message-ID: <20230830235459.GA3570@redhat.com> References: <20230825161842.GA16750@redhat.com> <20230825161947.GA16871@redhat.com> <20230825170406.GA16800@redhat.com> <20230827201909.GC28645@redhat.com> <20230828105453.GB19186@redhat.com> <25be098a-dc41-7907-5590-1835308ebe28@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <25be098a-dc41-7907-5590-1835308ebe28@linux.dev> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On 08/28, Yonghong Song wrote: > > On 8/28/23 3:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > >Could you review 6/6 as well? > > I think we can wait patch 6/6 after > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@redhat.com/ > is merged. OK. > >Should I fold 1-5 into a single patch? I tried to document every change > >and simplify the review, but I do not want to blow the git history. > > Currently, because patch 6, the whole patch set cannot be tested by > bpf CI since it has a build failure: > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/5580 Heh. I thought this is obvious. I thought you can test 1-5 without 6/6 and _review_ 6/6. I simply can't understand how can this pull/5580 come when I specially mentioned > 6/6 obviously depends on > > [PATCH 1/2] introduce __next_thread(), fix next_tid() vs exec() race > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@redhat.com/ > > which was not merged yet. in 0/6. > I suggest you get patch 1-5 and resubmit with tag like > "bpf-next v2" > [Patch bpf-next v2 x/5] ... > so CI can build with different architectures and compilers to > ensure everything builds and runs fine. I think we can wait for https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@redhat.com/ as you suggest above, then I'll send the s/next_thread/__next_thread/ oneliner without 1-5. I no longer think it makes sense to try to cleanup the poor task_group_seq_get_next() when IMHO the whole task_iter logic needs the complete rewrite. Yes, yes, I know, it is very easy to blame someone else's code, sorry can't resist ;) The only "fix" in this series is 3/6, but this code has more serious bugs, so I guess we can forget it. Oleg.