From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/scheduler: Don't call wait_event_killable for signaled process. Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:29:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20180430152941.GA10583@redhat.com> References: <1524583836-12130-3-git-send-email-andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com> <87muxsbmkp.fsf@xmission.com> <8840ac96-50c4-f94d-eb7c-f007940163f3@amd.com> <877eowa5qh.fsf@xmission.com> <20180425135552.GD7592@redhat.com> <20180425171757.GA10441@redhat.com> <874ljyu98e.fsf@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Andrey Grodzovsky , David.Panariti@amd.com, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander.Deucher@amd.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Christian.Koenig@amd.com List-Id: amd-gfx.lists.freedesktop.org On 04/30, Christian König wrote: > > Well when the process is killed we don't care about correctness any more, we > just want to get rid of it as quickly as possible (OOM situation etc...). OK, > But it is perfectly possible that a process submits some render commands and > then calls exit() or terminates because of a SIGTERM, SIGINT etc.. This doesn't differ from SIGKILL. I mean, any unhandled fatal signal translates to SIGKILL and I think this is fine. but this doesn't really matter, > So what we essentially need is to distinct between a SIGKILL (which means > stop processing as soon as possible) and any other reason because then we > don't want to annoy the user with garbage on the screen (even if it's just > for a few milliseconds). For what? OK, I see another email from Andrey, I'll reply to that email... Oleg.