From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jstancek@redhat.com, clm@fb.com,
vladimir.murzin@arm.com, pjt@google.com, efault@gmx.de,
tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, neilb@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/wait: Fix the signal handling fix
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:50:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151214185004.GA27367@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151213211116.GK6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Peter, sorry. I didn't actually read this patch yet (and a lot of previous
emails). Will try tomorrow, I am not even sure I understand the problem(s)
correctly. But let me ask one question anyway,
On 12/13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> @@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ __wait_on_bit(wait_queue_head_t *wq, str
> do {
> prepare_to_wait(wq, &q->wait, mode);
> if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags))
> - ret = (*action)(&q->key);
> + ret = (*action)(&q->key, mode);
And every action() should check signal_pending_state()...
So why we can't change __wait_on_bit/etc instead and remove all the signal-
pending checks from the callbacks? It seems that we can just check
signal_pending_state() before prepare_to_wait(). Or perhaps we can add
another helper which acts like prepare_to_wait_event().
Yes, some callers want -EINTR, some -ERESTARTSYS, but this shouldn't be a
problem.
And sorry if this was already discussed, another case when I am trying to
return to lkml with a lot of unread emails.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-14 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-13 21:11 [PATCH] sched/wait: Fix the signal handling fix Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-14 18:50 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2015-12-14 21:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151214185004.GA27367@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vladimir.murzin@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.