[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230524145920.SGZv5D4a@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 16:59:20 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Consider task_struct::saved_state in
wait_task_inactive().
On 2023-03-29 15:33:39 [+0200], To Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On 2023-02-23 17:53:48 [+0100], To Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On 2023-02-22 14:36:14 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Which if the very few wait_task_inactive() users requires this?
> >
> > ptrace is the remaining (known) one (just verified on v6.2-rt3).
> > ptrace_check_attach() waits for the child which blocks on tasklist_lock.
> >
> > tglx argued that wait_task_inactive() should work regardless of the
> > task, that is being waited for, blocks on a sleeping lock.
>
> a polite ping.
a very polity ping.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists