[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19d2f8cc-320f-a4d1-79e3-fbdef3b44540@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 10:18:15 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] task_work: use TIF_TASKWORK if available
On 10/2/20 9:38 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> I think it's fundamentaly wrong that we have several places and several
>> flags which handle task_work_run() instead of having exactly one place
>> and one flag.
>
> Damn yes, agreed.
As mentioned in the other reply, this is actually a nice step towards
NOT having that be the case. Right now we have TWA_RESUME, which uses
TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME. Once all archs support TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL, then we can
totally drop TWA_NOTIFY resume, and use use TWA_SIGNAL as the default
for notify == true task_work users. And we can drop task_work noticing
and running in the signal handling as well, leaving us with only having
tracehook_notify_signal() running the task_work.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists