Re: [PATCH 0/2] Don't show PF_IO_WORKER in /proc/<pid>/task/

[Jens Axboe]

On 3/25/21 3:57 PM, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> 
> Am 25.03.21 um 22:44 schrieb Jens Axboe:
>> On 3/25/21 2:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 3/25/21 2:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:42 PM Linus Torvalds
>>>> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:38 PM Linus Torvalds
>>>>> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what the gdb logic is, but maybe there's some other
>>>>>> option that makes gdb not react to them?
>>>>>
>>>>> .. maybe we could have a different name for them under the task/
>>>>> subdirectory, for example (not  just the pid)? Although that probably
>>>>> messes up 'ps' too..
>>>>
>>>> Actually, maybe the right model is to simply make all the io threads
>>>> take signals, and get rid of all the special cases.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the signals will never be delivered to user space, but if we
>>>>
>>>>  - just made the thread loop do "get_signal()" when there are pending signals
>>>>
>>>>  - allowed ptrace_attach on them
>>>>
>>>> they'd look pretty much like regular threads that just never do the
>>>> user-space part of signal handling.
>>>>
>>>> The whole "signals are very special for IO threads" thing has caused
>>>> so many problems, that maybe the solution is simply to _not_ make them
>>>> special?
>>>
>>> Just to wrap up the previous one, yes it broke all sorts of things to
>>> make the 'tid' directory different. They just end up being hidden anyway
>>> through that, for both ps and top.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do think that maybe it's better to just embrace maybe just
>>> embrace the signals, and have everything just work by default. It's
>>> better than continually trying to make the threads special. I'll see
>>> if there are some demons lurking down that path.
>>
>> In the spirit of "let's just try it", I ran with the below patch. With
>> that, I can gdb attach just fine to a test case that creates an io_uring
>> and a regular thread with pthread_create(). The regular thread uses
>> the ring, so you end up with two iou-mgr threads. Attach:
>>
>> [root@archlinux ~]# gdb -p 360
>> [snip gdb noise]
>> Attaching to process 360
>> [New LWP 361]
>> [New LWP 362]
>> [New LWP 363]
>>
>> warning: Selected architecture i386:x86-64 is not compatible with reported target architecture i386
>>
>> warning: Architecture rejected target-supplied description
>> Error while reading shared library symbols for /usr/lib/libpthread.so.0:
>> Cannot find user-level thread for LWP 363: generic error
>> 0x00007f7aa526e125 in clock_nanosleep@GLIBC_2.2.5 () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
>> (gdb) info threads
>>   Id   Target Id             Frame 
>> * 1    LWP 360 "io_uring"    0x00007f7aa526e125 in clock_nanosleep@GLIBC_2.2.5 ()
>>    from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
>>   2    LWP 361 "iou-mgr-360" 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>>   3    LWP 362 "io_uring"    0x00007f7aa52a0a9d in syscall () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
>>   4    LWP 363 "iou-mgr-362" 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>> (gdb) thread 2
>> [Switching to thread 2 (LWP 361)]
>> #0  0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>> (gdb) bt
>> #0  0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>> Backtrace stopped: Cannot access memory at address 0x0
>> (gdb) cont
>> Continuing.
>> ^C
>> Thread 1 "io_uring" received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
>> [Switching to LWP 360]
>> 0x00007f7aa526e125 in clock_nanosleep@GLIBC_2.2.5 () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
>> (gdb) q
>> A debugging session is active.
>>
>> 	Inferior 1 [process 360] will be detached.
>>
>> Quit anyway? (y or n) y
>> Detaching from program: /root/git/fio/t/io_uring, process 360
>> [Inferior 1 (process 360) detached]
>>
>> The iou-mgr-x threads are stopped just fine, gdb obviously can't get any
>> real info out of them. But it works... Regular test cases work fine too,
>> just a sanity check. Didn't expect them not to.
> 
> I guess that's basically what I tried to describe when I said they
> should look like a userspace process that is blocked in a syscall
> forever.

Right, that's almost what they look like, in practice that is what they
look like.

>> Only thing that I dislike a bit, but I guess that's just a Linuxism, is
>> that if can now kill an io_uring owning task by sending a signal to one
>> of its IO thread workers.
> 
> Can't we just only allow SIGSTOP, which will be only delivered to
> the iothread itself? And also SIGKILL should not be allowed from userspace.

I don't think we can sanely block them, and we to cleanup and teardown
normally regardless of who gets the signal (owner or one of the
threads). So I'm not _too_ hung up on the "io thread gets signal goes to
owner" as that is what happens with normal threads too, though I would
prefer if that wasn't the case. But overall I feel better just embracing
the thread model, rather than having something that kinda sorta looks
like a thread, but differs in odd ways.

> And /proc/$iothread/ should be read only and owned by root with
> "cmdline" and "exe" being empty.

I know you brought this one up as part of your series, not sure I get
why you want it owned by root and read-only? cmdline and exe, yeah those
could be hidden, but is there really any point?

Maybe I'm missing something here, if so, do clue me in!

-- 
Jens Axboe