[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140128164320.GB7596@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:43:20 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Do we really need curr_target in signal_struct ?
On 01/28, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>
> As an alternative of using curr_target we can use get_nr_thread() count
We do not even need get_nr_thread() if we want to kill curr_target,
> @@ -961,21 +962,16 @@ static void complete_signal(int sig, struct task_struct *p, int group)
> */
> return;
> else {
> - /*
> - * Otherwise try to find a suitable thread.
> - */
> - t = signal->curr_target;
> - while (!wants_signal(sig, t)) {
> + i = get_nr_threads(p);
> + t = p;
> + do {
> + --i;
> t = next_thread(t);
> - if (t == signal->curr_target)
> - /*
> - * No thread needs to be woken.
> - * Any eligible threads will see
> - * the signal in the queue soon.
> - */
> + if (!i)
> return;
> - }
> - signal->curr_target = t;
> + } while (!wants_signal(sig, t));
You could simply do while_each_thread(p, t) to find a thread which
wants_signal(..).
But I guess ->curr_target was added exactly to avoid this loop if
possible, assuming that wants_signal(->current_targer) should be
likely true. Although perhaps this optimization is too simple.
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