[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Signal scalability series
    On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 15:16 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > Why do we have? Usually SIGCONT is ignored. But this doesn't matter,
    > SIGCONT acts at the sending time.
    > If SIGCONT is sent - the process must not stop. Since we drop the lock
    > we can't guarantee this.

    OK, I see, thanks.

    > > > May be do_signal_stop() does something special? At first flance it doesn't.
    > > > But wait, it does while_each_thread() under ->ctrl_lock, why this is safe?
    > >
    > > Why is it not safe? What scenario are you thinking of where that isn't
    > > safe?
    > This series doesn't add ->ctrl_lock into copy_process/__unhash_process
    > or I misread the patches. This means we can't trust >thread_group list.


    Arrrrggghh! This is why I complain about sighand->siglock protecting too
    much, I didn't even _REALISE_ it protected the ->thread_group list.
    Thanks for pointing that out, Oleg!

    > Even this is safe (say, we can rely on rcu), we can't calculate
    > ->group_stop_count correctly. In particular, without ->siglock we can
    > race with exit_signals() which sets PF_EXITING. Note that PF_EXITING
    > check in task_set_jobctl_pending() is important.

    Ah, I think it was these lines that confused me into thinking
    ->ctrl_lock wasn't required around PF_EXITING,

    void exit_signals(struct task_struct *tsk)
    int group_stop = 0;
    sigset_t unblocked;

    if (thread_group_empty(tsk) || signal_group_exit(tsk->signal)) {
    tsk->flags |= PF_EXITING;

    But I guess that's safe because either we're the only thread in the
    group or the group is already going to exit?

    Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-04 10:59    [W:0.023 / U:16.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site