From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
arjan@linux.intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
hch@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, rminnich@sandia.gov,
ericvh@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH fwd] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:53:56 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081122105356.87856d04.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4927FE87.6050005@gmail.com>
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:43:51 +0900 Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 09:58:33AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> +int poll_schedule_timeout(struct poll_wqueues *pwq, int state,
> >> + ktime_t *expires, unsigned long slack)
> >
> > All callers of poll_schedule() and poll_schedule_timeout() pass
> > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. We can elide the 'state' argument.
>
> Well, I wanted to keep it as to keep it more consistent with other
> schedule() functions but both Miklos and you don't seem to like it, so I
> might as well just drop it. Andrew, what do you think?
I guess that if any poll/select syscall were to sleep in
uninterruptible state, people would get upset about the effect upon their
load average and we'd have to go in and fix it.
So, yup, I expect that hard-coding TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE would be OK.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-22 18:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-22 8:58 [PATCH fwd] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep Miklos Szeredi
2008-11-22 9:27 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-22 12:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-11-22 12:43 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-22 18:53 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-11-23 1:26 ` poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #3 Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 2:35 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-23 3:05 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 3:34 ` Brad Boyer
2008-11-23 3:48 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 8:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-23 9:14 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 9:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-23 9:43 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 9:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-24 4:29 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-24 4:57 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-24 5:05 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-24 6:09 ` [PATCH] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #4 Tejun Heo
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=20081122105356.87856d04.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ericvh@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rminnich@sandia.gov \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).