On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> 2013/1/5 Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> > From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com>
> >
> > The wait_event() at the head of the rcu_nocb_kthread() can result in
> > soft-lockup complaints if the CPU in question does not register RCU
> > callbacks for an extended period. This commit therefore changes
> > the wait_event() to a wait_event_interruptible().
> >
> > Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 3 ++-
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > index f6e5ec2..43dba2d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > @@ -2366,10 +2366,11 @@ static int rcu_nocb_kthread(void *arg)
> > for (;;) {
> > /* If not polling, wait for next batch of callbacks. */
> > if (!rcu_nocb_poll)
> > - wait_event(rdp->nocb_wq, rdp->nocb_head);
> > + wait_event_interruptible(rdp->nocb_wq,
> > rdp->nocb_head);
> > list = ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_head);
> > if (!list) {
> > schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
> > + flush_signals(current);
>
> Why is that needed?
To satisfy my paranoia. ;-) And in case someone ever figures out some
way to send a signal to a kthread.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
