[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803281942440.14670@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] set_restore_sigmask TIF_SIGPENDING
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> It could be a PF_* too, I suppose. There aren't too many of those
> bits free, but it would have the advantage of being a place for an
> arch that doesn't store any TS_* bits anywhere.
Yeah, I guess PF_ would be a bit more regular. Maybe we should even try to
avoid the use of TS_ in x86, and turn it into PF_. There are probably bad
historical reasons for the duplication of capabilities.
> Since acting on the flag is in arch signal code anyway, it makes some
> sense to let the arch define how it gets that to happen. I'll send
> some follow-on patches that change the conditionals to use #ifdef
> HAVE_SET_RESTORE_SIGMASK.
Let's see if it matters first. No reason to add another arch-specific
thing if nobody can even measure this thing, and from a quick look it
seems like every RESTORE_SIGMASK user is basically an error path for a
system call. Those few extra cycles really won't be noticeable, we almost
certainly have better things we could use our energy on.
So never mind. I think your series is fine, and my TS_ idea doesn't really
look like it's worth it (and using PF_ sounds a bit more palatable since
we could do it with existing infrastructure, but a quick grep shows that
there's more users of test_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK) than I would
have expected (and the *testing* is equally cheap for atomic and thread-
synchronous fields, so that's not a performance issue).
Linus
--
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