[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] drm/scheduler: Don't call wait_event_killable for signaled process.

On 04/30/2018 12:00 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/30, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
>> What about changing PF_SIGNALED to  PF_EXITING in
>> drm_sched_entity_do_release
>> -       if ((current->flags & PF_SIGNALED) && current->exit_code == SIGKILL)
>> +      if ((current->flags & PF_EXITING) && current->exit_code == SIGKILL)
> let me repeat, please don't use task->exit_code. And in fact this check is racy
> But this doesn't matter. Say, we can trivially add SIGNAL_GROUP_KILLED_BY_SIGKILL,
> or do something else,

Can you explain where is the race and what is a possible alternative then ?

> but I fail to understand what are you trying to do. Suppose
> that the check above is correct in that it is true iff the task is exiting and
> it was killed by SIGKILL. What about the "else" branch which does
> r = wait_event_killable(sched->job_scheduled, ...)
> ?
> Once again, fatal_signal_pending() (or even signal_pending()) is not well defined
> after the exiting task passes exit_signals().
> So wait_event_killable() can fail because fatal_signal_pending() is true; and this
> can happen even if it was not killed.
> Or it can block and SIGKILL won't be able to wake it up.
>> If SIGINT was sent then it's SIGINT,
> Yes, but see above. in this case fatal_signal_pending() will be likely true so
> wait_event_killable() will fail unless condition is already true.

My bad, I didn't show the full intended fix, it was just a snippet to
address the differentiation between exiting
do to SIGKILL and any other exit, I also intended to change
wait_event_killable to wait_event_timeout.


> Oleg.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-30 18:12    [W:0.177 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site