[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140318162319.GB5669@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:23:19 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peng Tao <bergwolf@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: introduce add_wait_queue_exclusive_head
On 03/18, Peng Tao wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Unless you cannot use ___wait() and really need to open-code the
> > wait_event() stuff.
> >
> Lustre's private l_wait_event() stuff takes care to (un)mask
> LUSTRE_FATAL_SIGS
Hmm. This is off-topic but after the quick grep LUSTRE_FATAL_SIGS/etc
looks suspicious.
Firtsly, cfs_block_sigs/cfs_block_sigsinv/etc are not exactly right,
they need set_current_blocked(). And you can read "old" lockless.
And note that cfs_block_sigsinv(0) (which should block all signals)
can't actually protect from SIGKILL (or in fact from another fatal
signal) or SIGSTOP if the caller is multithreaded. Or ptrace, or
freezer.
> and always wait in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state.
and it seems that __wstate passed to waitq_wait/waitq_timedwait is
simply ignored.
> It looks to me that we can at least wrap l_wait_event() on top of
> wait_event_interruptible/wait_event_timeout_interruptible.
l_wait_event looks really complicated ;) but perhaps you can rewrite
it on top of ___wait_event(), note that condition/cmd can do anything
you want.
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