[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de00f13d-9ff0-6955-5d37-557f044ce2aa@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:31:32 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] kernel: split syscall restart from signal handling
On 10/8/20 8:21 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> Move the restart syscall logic into a separate generic entry helper,
>> and handle that part separately from signal checking and delivery.
>>
>> This is in preparation for being able to do syscall restarting
>> independently from handling signals.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/signal.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
>> include/linux/entry-common.h | 14 ++++++++++++--
>> kernel/entry/common.c | 11 ++++++++---
>> 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> Can't we avoid this patch and the and simplify the change in
> exit_to_user_mode_loop() from the next patch? Can't the much more simple
> patch below work?
>
> Then later we can even change arch_do_signal() to accept the additional
> argument, ti_work, so that it can use ti_work & TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL/SIGPENDING
> instead of test_thread_flag/task_sigpending.
Yeah I guess that would be a bit simpler, maybe I'm too focused on
decoupling the two. But if we go this route, and avoid sighand->lock for
just having TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL set, then that should be functionally
equivalent as far as I'm concerned.
I'll make the reduction, I'd prefer to keep this as small/simple as
possible initially.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists