From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:24:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC 0/12] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore Message-Id: <20160310102412.GA21593@gmail.com> List-Id: References: <1454444369-2146-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20160309121850.GA14915@gmail.com> <20160309125641.GH27018@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160309131710.GB7978@gmail.com> <20160309132855.GI27018@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160309134339.GA20911@gmail.com> <20160309144140.GJ27018@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20160309144140.GJ27018@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , "David S. Miller" , Tony Luck , Andrew Morton , Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra * Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Why? Each syscall already is killable as the task might be killed by the OOM > > > killer. > > > > Not all syscalls are interruptible - for example sys_sync() isn't: > > I guess we are talking past each other. [...] Heh, you are being polite, I think what happened is that I was being dense and didn't understand your point: > [...] What I meant was that while all syscalls are allowed to not return to the > userspace because the task might get killed but not all of them accept to get > interrupted by a signal and return with EINTR. None of the man page of mmap, > mremap, mlock, mprotect list EINTR as a possibility so I would be really afraid > of returning an unexpected error code. Indeed. > Does this make more sense now? It does! Thanks, Ingo