Hi Gabriele and Nam,
Sep 23, 2025 09:43:05 Gabriele Monaco <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 2025-09-22 at 18:29 +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 02:26:12PM +0200, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2025-09-19 at 12:49 +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
>>>> +static void rv_reaction_signal(int signal, const char *fmt, va_list args)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rv_signal_work *work;
>>>> + char message[256];
>>>> +
>>>> + work = mempool_alloc_preallocated(rv_signal_task_work_pool);
>>>> + if (!work) {
>>>> + pr_warn_ratelimited("Unable to signal through task_work,
>>>> sending directly\n");
>>>> + vsnprintf(message, sizeof(message), fmt, args);
>>>> + rv_signal_force_sig(signal, message);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Why do you use the task_work at all instead of signalling directly?
>>> If that's something not safe from a (any) tracepoint because it can sleep
>>
>> If I remember correctly, sending signals requires a spinlock and therefore
>> may sleep on PREEMPT_RT.
>
> Yeah that's what I quickly glanced at. Which seems to be the case also for
> mempool_alloc_preallocated by the way, so I'm not sure that's safer than
> signalling directly on PREEMPT_RT.
>
> Thomas, did you test your reactor on PREEMPT_RT? I'd expect a few fat warnings
> when this is called from sched tracepoints. Unless you're lucky and never get
> contention. Lockdep (CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) may help here.
I trusted the documentation, which promised not to sleep.
I'll rework it for v2.
> Thanks,
> Gabriele
>
>>
>>> you should definitely not call it if allocation fails.
>>
>> Yep.
Ack.
>>
>> We probably can get away with not reacting at all if allocation fails, by
>> crafting our tests such that only one reaction happens at a time, and
>> allocation won't fail.
Ack.
I am wondering if it would make sense to add a new tracepoint that fires in
addition of the reactors.
That would allow multiple simultaneous consumers and also bespoke handlers in
userspace.
Thomas
