[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87362hd6ta.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 01:50:25 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Roman Gershman <romger@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] task_work: use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL if available
On Thu, Oct 08 2020 at 09:27, Jens Axboe wrote:
> +/*
> + * TWA_SIGNAL signaling - use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL, if available, as it's faster
> + * than TIF_SIGPENDING as there's no dependency on ->sighand. The latter is
> + * shared for threads, and can cause contention on sighand->lock. Even for
> + * the non-threaded case TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL is more efficient, as no locking
> + * or IRQ disabling is involved for notification (or running) purposes.
> + */
> +static void task_work_notify_signal(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +#ifdef TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
> + set_notify_signal(task);
> +#else
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + /*
> + * Only grab the sighand lock if we don't already have some
> + * task_work pending. This pairs with the smp_store_mb()
> + * in get_signal(), see comment there.
> + */
> + if (!(READ_ONCE(task->jobctl) & JOBCTL_TASK_WORK) &&
> + lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
> + task->jobctl |= JOBCTL_TASK_WORK;
> + signal_wake_up(task, 0);
> + unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
> + }
> +#endif
Same #ifdeffery comment as before.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists