From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C06C4332F for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:30:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234293AbiK1SaF (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:30:05 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37916 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234277AbiK1S3q (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:29:46 -0500 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com (out03.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.233]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2491910FD for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:22:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]:58492) by out03.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1ozimF-00G7EZ-57; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 11:22:47 -0700 Received: from ip68-110-29-46.om.om.cox.net ([68.110.29.46]:45584 helo=email.froward.int.ebiederm.org.xmission.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1ozimD-005gjD-Rt; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 11:22:46 -0700 From: "Eric W. Biederman" To: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , "Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sultan@kerneltoast.com References: <0029af41-bf24-9972-10ac-f52e1bdcbf08@linux.intel.com> <41455798-1dcb-135f-516d-25ab9a8082f5@linux.intel.com> <8acc3e4a-abbc-32bc-626e-7a216f6755c3@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 12:22:39 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Tvrtko Ursulin's message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:45:49 +0100") Message-ID: <87a64brlao.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1ozimD-005gjD-Rt;;;mid=<87a64brlao.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.110.29.46;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=pass X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18H+V2VRM40WCdfRIizymPk+iWBMRfIDyU= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.110.29.46 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] signal: break out of wait loops on kthread_stop() X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Tvrtko Ursulin writes: > On 19/10/2022 21:19, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 09:09:28PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >>> Hm why is kthread_stop() after kthread_run() abuse? I don't see it in >>> kerneldoc that it must not be used for stopping threads. >> Because you don't want it to stop. You want to wait until it's done. If >> you call stop right after run, it will even stop it before it even >> begins to run. That's why you wind up sprinkling your msleeps >> everywhere, indicating that clearly this is not meant to work that way. > Not after kthread_run which wakes it up already. If the kerneldoc for > kthread_stop() is correct at least... In which case I really do think > that the yields are pointless/red herring. Perhaps they predate kthread_run and > then they were even wrong. > >>> Yep the yields and sleeps are horrible and will go. But they are also >>> not relevant for the topic at hand. >> Except they very much are. The reason you need these is because you're >> using kthread_stop() for something it's not meant to do. > > It is supposed to assert kthread_should_stop() which thread can look at as when > to exit. Except that now it can fail to get to that controlled exit > point. Granted that argument is moot since it implies incomplete error handling > in the thread anyway. > > Btw there are actually two use cases in our code base. One is thread controls > the exit, second is caller controls the exit. Anyway... > >>> Never mind, I was not looking for anything more than a suggestion on how >>> to maybe work around it in piece as someone is dealing with the affected >>> call sites. >> Sultan's kthread_work idea is probably the right direction. This would >> seem to have what you need. > > ... yes, it can be converted. Even though for one of the two use cases we need > explicit signalling. There now isn't anything which would assert > kthread_should_stop() without also asserting the signal, right?. Neither > I found that the thread work API can do it. > > Fingers crossed we were the only "abusers" of the API. There's a quite a number > of kthread_stop callers and it would be a large job to audit them all. I have been out and am coming to this late. Did this get resolved? I really don't expect this affected much of anything else as the code sat in linux-next for an entire development cycle before being merged. But I would like to make certain problems with this change were resolved. Thank you, Eric