From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752757Ab1IDStt (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:49:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48918 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752561Ab1IDSto (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:49:44 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 20:46:26 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Tejun Heo Cc: matthltc@us.ibm.com, rjw@sisk.pl, paul@paulmenage.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] freezer: kill unused set_freezable_with_signal() Message-ID: <20110904184626.GA30101@redhat.com> References: <1314988070-12244-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1314988070-12244-7-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1314988070-12244-7-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/03, Tejun Heo wrote: > > This patch removes set_freezable_with_signal() along with > PF_FREEZER_NOSIG Great. I never understood PF_FREEZER_NOSIG logic ;) One question, > @@ -72,10 +72,6 @@ bool __refrigerator(bool check_kthr_stop) > schedule(); > } > > - spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); > - recalc_sigpending(); /* We sent fake signal, clean it up */ > - spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); > - Why? This recalc_sigpending() makes sense imho. Otherwise the user-space tasks (almost) always return with TIF_SIGPENDING. May be we can do this under "if (PF_KTRHREAD)". For example. Suppose the user-space task does wait_event_freezable()... Hmm. OTOH, wait_event_freezable() looks wrong anyway... So probably this doesn't matter. ptrace_stop/get_signal_to_deliver doesn't need this, probably we do not care about the other callers. It seems, a lot of get_signal_to_deliver() calles also call try_to_freeze() for no reason. So, yes, I am starting to think this change is fine too ;) Oleg.