[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1390505486.5567.1014.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:31:26 -0800
From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: kmo@...erainc.com, target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 1/3] percpu_ida: Make percpu_ida_alloc + callers
accept task state bitmask
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:12 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:40:04AM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 11:53 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > Does this satisfy your questions..?
> > >
> > > Do you have any more concerns about TASK_RUNNING + prepare_to_wait()
> > > usage in percpu_ida_alloc() that need to be addressed before I can drop
> > > this series into target-pending/for-next to address the original bug..?
> > >
> >
> > Given the silence,
>
> You mean the silence in which I send a 4+ emails earlier today?
>
> > I'll assume your OK with the initial TASK_RUNNING +
> > prepare_to_wait() bit, right..?
>
> No, I would prefer not to do that. While it does work its awkward at
> best.
AFAICT, those changes don't address the original bug that the series was
trying to address, allowing the percpu_ida_alloc() tag stealing slow
path to be interrupted by a signal..
Also, keep in mind this change needs to be backported to >= v3.12, which
is why the percpu_ida changes have been kept to a minimum.
--nab
--
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