On 04/07, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On 04/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> >> @@ -275,10 +275,7 @@ static void reparent_to_init(void)
> >> remove_parent(current);
> >> current->parent = child_reaper(current);
> >> current->real_parent = child_reaper(current);
> >> - add_parent(current);
> >> -
> >> - /* Set the exit signal to SIGCHLD so we signal init on exit */
> >> - current->exit_signal = SIGCHLD;
> >> + current->exit_signal = -1;
> >>
> >> if (!has_rt_policy(current) && (task_nice(current) < 0))
> >> set_user_nice(current, 0);
> >>
> >> is enough. init is still our parent (make ps happy), but it can't see us,
> >> we are not on ->children list.
> >
> > OK, this doesn't work. A multi-threaded init may do execve().
>
> Good catch. daemonize must die!
Well, this is not the problem of daemonize(), but I agree, daemonize() should
die with the changes you proposed.
> > So, we can re-parent a kernel thread to swapper. In that case it doesn't matter
> > if we put task on ->children list or not.
>
> Yes. We can.
>
> > User-visible change. Acceptable?
>
> We would have user visible changes when we changed to ktrhead_create anyway,
> and it's none of user space's business so certainly.
OK, I'll try to do "just for review" patch. I'm afraid pstree will be confused.
> >> Off course, we also need to add preparent_to_init() to kthread() and
> >> (say) stopmachine(). Or we can create kernel_thread_detached() and
> >> modify callers to use it.
> >
> > It would be very nice to introduce CLONE_KERNEL_THREAD instead, then
>
> If we are going to do something to copy_process and the like let's take
> this one step farther. Let's pass in the value of the task to copy.
Yes! I thought about that too. but see below,
> Then we can add a wrapper around copy_process to build kernel_thread
> something like:
>
> struct task_struct *__kernel_thread(int (*fn)(void *), void * arg,
> unsigned long flags)
> {
> struct task_struct *task;
> struct pt_regs regs, *reg;
>
> reg = kernel_thread_regs(®s, fn, arg);
> task = copy_process(&init_task, flags, 0, reg, 0, NULL, NULL, NULL, 0);
> if (!IS_ERR(task))
> wake_up_new_task(task, flags);
>
> return task;
> }
First, we still need some additional flag/parameter to set ->exit_state = -1.
Let's use CLONE_KERNEL_THREAD for discussion.
Now. Can we do copy_process(an_arbitrary_task) ? If yes, we need additional
locking in copy_process(). Just think about ->signal,->parent access. Nasty,
and probably not so useful.
If we can only use "current" or init_task, CLONE_KERNEL_THREAD is enough.
Just now it only
- sets ->exit_state = -1
- sets ->parent = &init_task
(note that the second change could be omitted, we can use CLONE_PARENT
if we know that all users of CLONE_KERNEL_THREAD are kernel threads).
> After that daemonize just becomes:
>
> void daemonize(const char *name, ...)
> {
> va_list args;
>
> va_start(args, name);
> vsnprintf(current->comm, sizeof(current->comm), name, args);
> va_end(args);
> }
>
> And kthread_create becomes:
>
> struct task_struct *kthread_create(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
> void *data,
> const char namefmt[],
> ...)
> {
> struct kthread_create_info create;
> struct task_struct *task;
>
> create.threadfn = threadfn;
> create.data = data;
>
> /* We want our own signal handler (we take no signals by default). */
> task = __kernel_thread(kthread, create, CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES | SIGCHLD);
> if (!IS_ERR(task)) {
> va_list args;
> va_start(args, namefmt);
> vsnprintf(task->comm, sizeof(task->comm), namefmt, args);
> va_end(args);
> }
> return task;
> }
Yes, nice. This is not complete, we still have to wait for completion,
because kthread_create() promises that a new thread has no CPU on
return (so we can use kthread_bind() for example), but nice anyway.
> If we are willing to go that far. I think it is worth it to touch the
> architecture specific code. As that removes an unnecessary wait
> queue, and ensures that kernel threads always start with a consistent
> state. So it is a performance, scalability and simplicity boost.
Yes.
But note that CLONE_KERNEL_THREAD allows us to achieve the same step by
step. For example, we can extend the meaning of CLONE_KERNEL_THREAD to
use init_task.mm in copy_mm(), then copy_fs(), etc.
Eric, I am far from sure I am right though. Probably it is better to do
one big change as you suggested.
However, I like the idea of for-in-kernel-only CLONE_ flags. For example,
we can kill the ugly "pid" parameter of copy_process() and use CLONE_IDLE
instead.
Also, we can't use __kernel_thread() you propose if we want do_wait(),
using CLONE_ flags a bit more flexible.
BTW. I think your idea of kernel_thread_regs() is very nice in any case. Is
it enough (and possible) to implement an architecture neutral kernel_thread?
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
