[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131113191449.GF16796@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:14:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: __refrigerator() && saved task->state
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> At first glance it would be better to simply kill this logic? If
> it was called with ->state != 0, the caller is going to schedule()
> and it probably executes the wait_event-like code, in this case
> it would me more safe to pretend the task got a spurious wakeup?
Note that in general the kernel cannot deal with spurious wakeups :/
Most proper locks and wait primitives can, but there's enough open-coded
crap out there that can not.
I tried..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists