On 03/20, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> But please tell me why is it not the right thing to have the io_uring
> helper threads stop? Why is it ok for that process to go on consuming
> cpu resources in a non-stoppable way.
Yes, I have the same question ;)
Oleg.
On 03/20, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -2349,6 +2349,10 @@ static bool do_signal_stop(int signr)
>
> t = current;
> while_each_thread(current, t) {
> + /* don't STOP PF_IO_WORKER threads */
> +
Jens Axboe writes:
> Just like we don't allow normal signals to IO threads, don't deliver a
> STOP to a task that has PF_IO_WORKER set. The IO threads don't take
> signals in general, and have no means of flushing out a stop either.
At first glance this seems safe. This is before we count all
Just like we don't allow normal signals to IO threads, don't deliver a
STOP to a task that has PF_IO_WORKER set. The IO threads don't take
signals in general, and have no means of flushing out a stop either.
Reported-by: Stefan Metzmacher
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
---
kernel/signal.c | 4
4 matches
Mail list logo
