[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
On 10/12/20 11:27 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2020, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/9/20 9:21 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 10/9/20 2:01 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>>> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work
>>>>>> from real signals and signal delivery.
>>>>> I think TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL can have more users. Say, we can move
>>>>> try_to_freeze() from get_signal() to tracehook_notify_signal(), kill
>>>>> fake_signal_wake_up(), and remove freezing() from recalc_sigpending().
>>>>> Probably the same for TIF_PATCH_PENDING, klp_send_signals() can use
>>>>> set_notify_signal() rather than signal_wake_up().
>>>> Yes, that was my impression from the patch set too, when I accidentally
>>>> noticed it.
>>>> Jens, could you CC our live patching ML when you submit v4, please? It
>>>> would be a nice cleanup.
>>> Definitely, though it'd be v5 at this point. But we really need to get
>>> all archs supporting TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL first. Once we have that, there's
>>> a whole slew of cleanups that'll fall out naturally:
>>> - Removal of JOBCTL_TASK_WORK
>>> - Removal of special path for TWA_SIGNAL in task_work
>>> - TIF_PATCH_PENDING can be converted and then removed
>>> - try_to_freeze() cleanup that Oleg mentioned
>>> And probably more I'm not thinking of right now :-)
>> Here's the current series, I took a stab at converting all archs to
>> support TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL so we have a base to build on top of. Most
>> of them were straight forward, but I need someone to fixup powerpc,
>> verify arm and s390.
>> But it's a decent start I think, and means that we can drop various
>> bits as is done at the end of the series. I could swap things around
>> a bit and avoid having the intermediate step, but I envision that
>> getting this in all archs will take a bit longer than just signing off
>> on the generic/x86 bits. So probably best to keep the series as it is
>> for now, and work on getting the arch bits verified/fixed/tested.
> Thanks, Jens.
> Crude diff for live patching on top of the series is below. Tested only on
> x86_64, but it passes the tests without an issue.

Nice, thanks!

I'm continuing to hone the series, what's really missing so far is arch
review. Most conversions are straight forward, some I need folks to
definitely take a look at (arm, s390). powerpc is also a bit hair right
now, but I'm told that 5.10 will kill a TIF flag there, so that'll make
it trivial once I rebase on that.

Did a few more cleanups on top, series is in the same spot. I'll repost
once the merge window settles down.

Jens Axboe

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-13 21:40    [W:0.081 / U:3.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site