[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070902121943.GA141@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 16:19:43 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net>
Subject: Re: [RFC + PATCH] signalfd simplification
On 09/01, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> I'm playing at the moment with this patch, that recall Ben's idea of
> attaching to the sighand only during read/poll, and calling dequeue_signal()
> only with "current". This simplifies the signalfd logic quite a bit.
> If this patch is applied, a task calling signalfd can read its own private
> signals, and its own group signals.
>
> fs/exec.c | 3
> fs/signalfd.c | 186 +++++++---------------------------------------
> include/linux/init_task.h | 2
> include/linux/sched.h | 2
> include/linux/signalfd.h | 29 -------
> kernel/exit.c | 9 --
> kernel/fork.c | 2
> kernel/signal.c | 8 -
> 8 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)
Imho, very very nice. We lose the ability to read the cross-process signals,
but I doubt very much we should regret about that.
I cc'ed Michael, because it makes sense to document a user-visible change.
With this patch, the forked child reads its own signals (not parent's) via
the inherited signalfd (or if it was passed with unix socket).
Small problem: unless I missed something, signalfd_deliver() and sys_signalfd()
should use wake_up_all(), not wake_up() which implies nr_exclusive == 1.
It is possible that we have multiple threads waiting on ->signalfd_wqh with
the the different ->sigmask. In this case, the first woken thread can ignore
the signal, we should wake up all of them.
We can optimize this later, using a "clever" wait_queue_func_t if needed.
> + spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> + if (next_signal(¤t->pending, &ctx->sigmask) > 0 ||
> + next_signal(¤t->signal->shared_pending,
> + &ctx->sigmask) > 0)
Very minor nit: next_signal() always returns the value >= 0, imho the "> 0"
check looks a bit confusing.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists