[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1czwe7ngv.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 13:01:04 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Allow RT tasks to cache one sigqueue struct
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> writes:
> On 2021-03-03 16:09:05 [-0600], Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> writes:
>>
>> > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> >
>> > Allow realtime tasks to cache one sigqueue in task struct. This avoids an
>> > allocation which can increase the latency or fail.
>> > Ideally the sigqueue is cached after first successful delivery and will be
>> > available for next signal delivery. This works under the assumption that the RT
>> > task has never an unprocessed signal while a one is about to be queued.
>> >
>> > The caching is not used for SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC because this kind of sigqueue is
>> > handled differently (and not used for regular signal delivery).
>>
>> What part of this is about real time tasks? This allows any task
>> to cache a sigqueue entry.
>
> It is limited to realtime tasks (SCHED_FIFO/RR/DL):
>
> +static void __sigqueue_cache_or_free(struct sigqueue *q)
> +{
> …
> + if (!task_is_realtime(current) || !sigqueue_add_cache(current, q))
> + kmem_cache_free(sigqueue_cachep, q);
> +}
I see now. I was looking for it somewhere in the allocation side.
Oleg's suggestion of simply adding a few additional lines to
__sigqueue_free would have made this stand out more.
A __sigqueue_free that takes the relevant task_struct instead of always
assuming current would be nice here.
>> Either the patch is buggy or the description is. Overall caching one
>> sigqueue entry doesn't look insane. But it would help to have a clear
>> description of what is going on.
>
> Does this clear things up or is my logic somehow broken here?
No I just missed the task_is_realtime limitation.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists