On 10/16/20 12:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 08:53, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/16/20 8:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 10/16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
With moving the handling into get_signal() you don't need more changes
to arch/* than adding the TIF bit,
On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 08:53, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/16/20 8:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> With moving the handling into get_signal() you don't need more changes
>>> to arch/* than adding the TIF bit, right?
>>
>> we still need to do something like
>>
On 10/16/20 8:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> With moving the handling into get_signal() you don't need more changes
>> to arch/* than adding the TIF bit, right?
>
> we still need to do something like
>
> - if (thread_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
>
On 10/16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> With moving the handling into get_signal() you don't need more changes
> to arch/* than adding the TIF bit, right?
we still need to do something like
- if (thread_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
+ if (thread_flags & (_TIF_SIGPENDING |
On 10/16/20 8:11 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Jens,
>
> On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 07:33, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/16/20 3:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> I totally agree, and we're on the same page. I think you'll find that in
>> the past I always carry through, the task_work notification was
On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 07:35, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/16/20 3:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 11:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> That's a truly great suggestion:
>>
>>X86 is going to have that TIF bit once the above is available.
>>
>> I'm happy to help with the merge
Jens,
On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 07:33, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/16/20 3:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I totally agree, and we're on the same page. I think you'll find that in
> the past I always carry through, the task_work notification was somewhat
> of a rush due to a hang related to it. For
On 10/16/20 3:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 11:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15 2020 at 12:39, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 10/15/20 9:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> So if you change #2 to:
>>
>>Drop the CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY dependency, make _all_ architectures
On 10/16/20 3:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15 2020 at 12:39, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/15/20 9:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> You can simply nack the patch which adds TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL to
>>> arch/xxx/include/asm/thread_info.h.
>
> As if that is going to change anything...
>
>>
On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 11:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15 2020 at 12:39, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/15/20 9:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> So if you change #2 to:
>
>Drop the CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY dependency, make _all_ architectures
>use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL and clean up the jobctl
On Thu, Oct 15 2020 at 12:39, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/15/20 9:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> You can simply nack the patch which adds TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL to
>> arch/xxx/include/asm/thread_info.h.
As if that is going to change anything...
> This seems to be the biggest area of contention right
On 10/15/20 9:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/15, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov
>
> Yes, but ...
>
>> +static void task_work_notify_signal(struct task_struct *task)
>> +{
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY) && defined(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)
>
> as long as
On 10/15, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov
Yes, but ...
> +static void task_work_notify_signal(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +#if defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY) && defined(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)
as long as defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY) goes away ;)
Thomas, I strongly, strongly
If the arch supports TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL, then use that for TWA_SIGNAL as
it's more efficient than using the signal delivery method. This is
especially true on threaded applications, where ->sighand is shared
across threads, but it's also lighter weight on non-shared cases.
io_uring is a heavy
14 matches
Mail list logo
