[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090503233608.GG7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 16:36:08 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu_sched_grace_period: kill the bogus flush_signals()
On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 11:11:18PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> As a kernel thread, rcu_sched_grace_period() runs with all signals ignored.
> It can never receive a signal even if it sleeps in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, it
> needs the explicit allow_signal() to be visible for signals.
Good point!!!
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
>
> --- PTRACE/kernel/rcupreempt.c~ 2009-04-09 00:39:10.000000000 +0200
> +++ PTRACE/kernel/rcupreempt.c 2009-05-03 02:17:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1356,17 +1356,11 @@ static int rcu_sched_grace_period(void *
>
> rcu_ctrlblk.sched_sleep = rcu_sched_sleeping;
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rcu_ctrlblk.schedlock, flags);
> - ret = 0;
> + ret = 0; /* unused */
> __wait_event_interruptible(rcu_ctrlblk.sched_wq,
> rcu_ctrlblk.sched_sleep != rcu_sched_sleeping,
> ret);
>
> - /*
> - * Signals would prevent us from sleeping, and we cannot
> - * do much with them in any case. So flush them.
> - */
> - if (ret)
> - flush_signals(current);
> couldsleepnext = 0;
>
> } while (!kthread_should_stop());
>
--
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