Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 6 Jun 2015 23:58:16 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 06/18] signal/kthread: Initial implementation of kthread signal handling |
| |
On 06/05, Petr Mladek wrote: > > The main question is how much it should follow POSIX and the signal > handling of user space processes. On one hand, we want to be as close > as possible.
Why? Let the kthread decide what it should if it gets, say, SIGSTOP.
> Finally, kthread_do_signal() is called on a safe place in the main > iterant kthread cycle. Then we will not need any special code for > signals when using this kthread API.
OK, I will not comment other parts of iterant API in this thread.
But as for signal handling, to me a single kthread_iterant->do_signal() callback looks better. Rather than multiple callbacks passed as ->kthread_sa_handler.
That single callback can deque a signal and decide what it should do.
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, flags); > + > + if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_CLD_MASK)) { > + WARN(1, "there are no parents for kernel threads\n"); > + signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_CLD_MASK; > + } > + > + for (;;) { > + struct k_sigaction *ka; > + > + signr = dequeue_signal(current, ¤t->blocked, &ksig.info); > + > + if (!signr) > + break; > + > + ka = &sighand->action[signr-1]; > + > + /* Do nothing for ignored signals */ > + if (ka->sa.kthread_sa_handler == KTHREAD_SIG_IGN) > + continue;
Again, I agree something like the simple kthread_dequeue_signal() makes sense. Say, to drop the ignore signal like this code does. Although I do not think this is really important, SIG_IGN is only possible if this kthread does something strange. Say, blocks/unblocs the ignored signal.
> + > + /* Run the custom handler if any */ > + if (ka->sa.kthread_sa_handler != KTHREAD_SIG_DFL) { > + ksig.ka = *ka; > + > + if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_ONESHOT) > + ka->sa.kthread_sa_handler = KTHREAD_SIG_DFL; > + > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sighand->siglock, flags); > + /* could run directly for kthreads */ > + ksig.ka.sa.kthread_sa_handler(signr); > + freezable_cond_resched(); > + goto relock;
Well. But for what? A simple "switch (signr)" after kthread_dequeue_signal() can do the same. Or, speaking of kthread_iterant_fn() it can even dequeue the signal and pass it to kti->whatever(signr).
> + if (sig_kernel_ignore(signr)) > + continue;
For what? Why a kthread should unignore (say) SIGWINCH if it is not going to react?
> + if (sig_kernel_stop(signr)) { > + __set_current_state(TASK_STOPPED); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sighand->siglock, flags); > + /* Don't run again until woken by SIGCONT or SIGKILL */ > + freezable_schedule(); > + goto relock;
Yes this avoids the race with SIGCONT. But as I said we can add another trivial helper which checks JOBCTL_STOP_DEQUEUED. So a kthread can do this itself.
To me, SIG_DFL behaviour just makes makes no sense when it comes to kthreads. I do not even think this can simplify the code. Unlike user- space task, kthread can happily dequeue SIGSTOP, so why should we mimic the userspace SIG_DFL logic.
> + /* Death signals, but try to terminate cleanly */ > + kthread_stop_current(); > + __flush_signals(current); > + break;
The same.
Oleg.
| |