[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160407065807.GA29020@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 23:58:07 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for
down_write_killable
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
>Not sure I got your point here.
You set current to TASK_KILLABLE in the sleep loop, why do you want to change
it here to TASK_RUNNING if its about to be killed? At least in the case of
UNINTERRUPTABLE we do it merely as a redundancy after the breaking out of the
loop. Of course we also acquired the lock in the first place by that time and
we _better_ be running.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists