From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Allow RT tasks to cache one sigqueue struct
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 21:58:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lfb263h2.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m11rcu7nbr.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On Thu, Mar 04 2021 at 13:04, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
>>
>> We could of course do the caching unconditionally for all tasks.
>
> Is there any advantage to only doing this for realtime tasks?
It was mostly to avoid tons of cached entries hanging around all over
the place. So I limited it to the case which the RT users deeply cared
about. Also related to the accounting question below.
> If not it probably makes sense to do the caching for all tasks.
>
> I am wondering if we want to count the cached sigqueue structure to the
> users rt signal rlimit?
That makes some sense, but that's a user visible change as a single
signal will up the count for a tasks lifetime while today it is removed
from accounting again once the signal is delivered. So that needs some
thought.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-04 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-03 14:20 [PATCH] signal: Allow RT tasks to cache one sigqueue struct Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-03-03 15:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2021-03-04 21:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-03-05 10:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2021-03-04 21:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-03-03 22:09 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-04 8:11 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-03-04 15:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-03-04 19:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-04 20:58 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2021-03-10 18:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-03-10 21:57 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-10 23:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-03-11 12:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-03-11 14:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-03-11 16:32 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-03-04 19:01 ` Eric W. Biederman
[not found] <draft-874khk5yed.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
2021-03-10 8:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=87lfb263h2.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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