[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58c5f828-df7d-6698-e2d6-2a869e134dd4@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 05:43:25 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work: simplify the task_work_add() interface
On 2/23/22 12:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Provide a low-level task_work_add_nonotify interface that just adds
> the work to the list and open code the TWA_SIGNAL and TWA_NONE callers
> using it. task_work_add() itself now only handles the common TWA_RESUME
> case and can drop the notify argument.
Not sure this is much of a cleanup, and a potential fast case of
TWA_NONE will now still still set TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME. Also:
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 77b9c7e4793bf..94116a102dc61 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -9606,7 +9606,7 @@ static __cold void io_ring_exit_work(struct work_struct *work)
> ctx_node);
> /* don't spin on a single task if cancellation failed */
> list_rotate_left(&ctx->tctx_list);
> - ret = task_work_add(node->task, &exit.task_work, TWA_SIGNAL);
> + ret = task_work_add_nonotify(node->task, &exit.task_work);
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ret))
> continue;
This one is now no longer setting TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL.
If you want to get rid of the argument, why not just have separate
helpers? task_work_add_signal(), task_work_add_resume(),
task_work_add(). Setting TWA_RESUME unconditionally because it's the
common use case doesn't seem ideal.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists