From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, peterz@infradead.org,
lujialin4@huawei.com, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, mingo@redhat.com, ebiggers@kernel.org,
oleg@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernfs: add kernfs_ops.free operation to free resources tied to the file
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:54:22 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZJuSzlHfbLj3OjvM@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpG2_trH2DuudX_E0CWfMxyTKfPWqJU14zjVxpTk6kPiWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 02:58:08PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Ok in kernfs_generic_poll() we are using kernfs_open_node.poll
> waitqueue head for polling and kernfs_open_node is freed from inside
> kernfs_unlink_open_file() which is called from kernfs_fop_release().
> So, it is destroyed only when the last fput() is done, unlike the
> ops->release() operation which we are using for destroying PSI
> trigger's waitqueue. So, it seems we still need an operation which
> would indicate that the file is truly going away.
If we want to stay consistent with how kernfs behaves w.r.t. severing, the
right thing to do would be preventing any future polling at severing and
waking up everyone currently waiting, which sounds fine from cgroup behavior
POV too.
Now, the challenge is designing an interface which is difficult to make
mistake with. IOW, it'd be great if kernfs wraps poll call so that severing
is implemented without kernfs users doing anything, or at least make it
pretty obvious what the correct usage pattern is.
> Christian's suggestion to rename current ops->release() operation into
> ops->drain() (or ops->flush() per Matthew's request) and introduce a
> "new" ops->release() which is called only when the last fput() is done
> seems sane to me. Would everyone be happy with that approach?
I'm not sure I'd go there. The contract is that once ->release() is called,
the code backing that file can go away (e.g. rmmod'd). It really should
behave just like the last put from kernfs users' POV. For this specific fix,
it's safe because we know the ops is always built into the kernel and won't
go away but it'd be really bad if the interface says "this is a normal thing
to do". We'd be calling into rmmod'd text pages in no time.
So, I mean, even for temporary fix, we have to make it abundantly clear that
this is not for usual usage and can only be used if the code backing the ops
is built into the kernel and so on.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-28 1:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-26 20:17 [PATCH 1/2] kernfs: add kernfs_ops.free operation to free resources tied to the file Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-26 20:17 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/psi: tie psi trigger destruction with file's lifecycle Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-26 20:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] kernfs: add kernfs_ops.free operation to free resources tied to the file Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-26 20:31 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-26 20:39 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-27 8:24 ` Christian Brauner
2023-06-27 17:09 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-27 17:30 ` Christian Brauner
2023-06-27 17:36 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-27 18:42 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-27 20:09 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-27 21:43 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-27 21:58 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-28 1:54 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2023-06-28 3:09 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-28 7:26 ` Christian Brauner
2023-06-28 7:46 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-28 8:41 ` Christian Brauner
2023-06-28 16:28 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-28 17:35 ` Christian Brauner
2023-06-28 18:02 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-28 18:18 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-28 18:42 ` Greg KH
2023-06-28 20:12 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-28 20:34 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-28 21:50 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-30 0:59 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-30 8:21 ` Christian Brauner
2023-07-10 20:38 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-28 17:58 ` Tejun Heo
2023-06-27 6:25 ` Greg KH
2023-06-27 17:03 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-06-27 17:23 ` Christian Brauner
2023-06-27 17:36 ` Matthew Wilcox
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=ZJuSzlHfbLj3OjvM@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
--cc=lujialin4@huawei.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).