Mike Christie <[email protected]> writes: > On 5/18/23 9:18 AM, Christian Brauner wrote: >>> @@ -352,12 +353,13 @@ static int vhost_worker(void *data) >>> if (!node) { >>> schedule(); >>> /* >>> - * When we get a SIGKILL our release function will >>> - * be called. That will stop new IOs from being queued >>> - * and check for outstanding cmd responses. It will then >>> - * call vhost_task_stop to exit us. >>> + * When we get a SIGKILL we kick off a work to >>> + * run the driver's helper to stop new work and >>> + * handle completions. When they are done they will >>> + * call vhost_task_stop to tell us to exit. >>> */ >>> - vhost_task_get_signal(); >>> + if (vhost_task_get_signal()) >>> + schedule_work(&dev->destroy_worker); >>> } >> >> I'm pretty sure you still need to actually call exit here. Basically >> mirror what's done in io_worker_exit() minus the io specific bits. > > We do call do_exit(). Once destory_worker has flushed the device and > all outstanding IO has completed it call vhost_task_stop(). vhost_worker() > above then breaks out of the loop and returns and vhost_task_fn() does > do_exit().
I am not certain how you want to structure this but you really should not call get_signal after it returns positive before you call do_exit. You are in complete uncharted and untested waters calling get_signal multiple times, when get_signal figures the proper response is to call do_exit itself. Eric _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
