From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750982AbdFPUo7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:44:59 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:57743 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750780AbdFPUo5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:44:57 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , peterz@infradead.org, oleg@redhat.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <87zid92ns2.fsf@xmission.com> <20170615184820.22994-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20170615215717.GI3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170615232619.GS27288@wotan.suse.de> <20170615234336.GL3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 15:37:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20170615234336.GL3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Paul E. McKenney's message of "Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:43:36 -0700") Message-ID: <87bmpnsm71.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1dLy6s-0001qA-Lx;;;mid=<87bmpnsm71.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.3.213.87;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+0ix/eWVSB7vh4TFw5ygSLlAAJklo6QTU= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.213.87 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa08 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa08 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;"Paul E. McKenney" X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 5541 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 4.3 (0.1%), b_tie_ro: 2.9 (0.1%), parse: 1.03 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 11 (0.2%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.92 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 4.6 (0.1%), tests_pri_-950: 0.88 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 0.74 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 22 (0.4%), check_bayes: 21 (0.4%), b_tokenize: 4.9 (0.1%), b_tok_get_all: 8 (0.1%), b_comp_prob: 1.91 (0.0%), b_tok_touch_all: 3.8 (0.1%), b_finish: 0.77 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 272 (4.9%), check_dkim_signature: 0.36 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 3.5 (0.1%), tests_pri_500: 5222 (94.2%), poll_dns_idle: 5216 (94.1%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/2] swait: add idle to make idle-hacks on kthreads explicit X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Paul E. McKenney" writes: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:26:19AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:48:18AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > > While reviewing RCU's interruptible swaits I noticed signals were actually >> > > not expected. Paul explained that the reason signals are not expected is >> > > we use kthreads, which don't get signals, furthermore the code avoided the >> > > uninterruptible swaits as otherwise it would contribute to the system load >> > > average on idle, bumping it from 0 to 2 or 3 (depending on preemption). >> > > >> > > Since this can be confusing its best to be explicit about the requirements and >> > > goals. This patch depends on the other killable swaits [0] recently proposed as >> > > well interms of context. Thee patch can however be tested independently if >> > > the hunk is addressed separately. >> > > >> > > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170614222017.14653-3-mcgrof@kernel.org >> > >> > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney >> > >> > Are you looking to push these or were you wanting me to? >> >> I'd be happy for you to take them. > > OK, let's see if we can get some Acked-by's or Reviewed-by's from the > relevant people. > > For but one example, Eric, does this look good to you or are adjustments > needed? Other than an unnecessary return code I don't see any issues. Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" In truth I am just barely ahead of you folks. I ran into the same issue the other day with a piece of my code and someone pointed me to TASK_IDLE. Eric