[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160127210754.GA1593@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:07:54 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signals: work around random wakeups in sigsuspend()
On 01/27, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:41:54 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > IOW, signal_pending() is the "special" condition, you do not need to serialize
> > this check with task->state setting, exactly because schedule() knows about the
> > signals.
>
> So it's non-buggy because signal_pending() is special. But it *looks*
> buggy! And there's no comment there explaining why it looks buggy but
> isn't, so someone may later come along and "fix" it for us.
perhaps we can add a comment somewhere in sched.h to explain that a task can
never sleep with task->state == STATE if signal_pending_state(STATE) is true.
Every user of signal_pending() in the wait-event-like loop relies on this well-
known fact. Say, wait_event_interruptible() or __mutex_lock_common().
This is actually more about task->state, not about TIF_SIGPENDING imo.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists