[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081122105356.87856d04.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:53:56 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu,
rminnich@...dia.gov, ericvh@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH fwd] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:43:51 +0900 Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 09:58:33AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> +int poll_schedule_timeout(struct poll_wqueues *pwq, int state,
> >> + ktime_t *expires, unsigned long slack)
> >
> > All callers of poll_schedule() and poll_schedule_timeout() pass
> > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. We can elide the 'state' argument.
>
> Well, I wanted to keep it as to keep it more consistent with other
> schedule() functions but both Miklos and you don't seem to like it, so I
> might as well just drop it. Andrew, what do you think?
I guess that if any poll/select syscall were to sleep in
uninterruptible state, people would get upset about the effect upon their
load average and we'd have to go in and fix it.
So, yup, I expect that hard-coding TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE would be OK.
--
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