[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220413132922.GB27281@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:29:22 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tj@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched,signal,ptrace: Rework TASK_TRACED,
TASK_STOPPED state
On 04/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> @@ -475,8 +483,10 @@ static int ptrace_attach(struct task_str
> * in and out of STOPPED are protected by siglock.
> */
> if (task_is_stopped(task) &&
> - task_set_jobctl_pending(task, JOBCTL_TRAP_STOP | JOBCTL_TRAPPING))
> + task_set_jobctl_pending(task, JOBCTL_TRAP_STOP | JOBCTL_TRAPPING)) {
> + task->jobctl &= ~JOBCTL_STOPPED;
> signal_wake_up_state(task, __TASK_STOPPED);
OK, but just for record before I forget...
It seems that we can s/JOBCTL_STOPPED/JOBCTL_TRACED/ instead, and kill the
nasty wait_on_bit(JOBCTL_TRAPPING_BIT) along with JOBCTL_TRAPPING_BIT. Sure,
this doesn't belong to this series.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists