Am 01.05.2017 um 02:13 schrieb Xie, AlexBin:
On 28/04/17 11:12 PM, Xie, AlexBin wrote:
>> Am 28.04.2017 um 10:47 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>>> From: Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Some of these paths probably cannot be interrupted by a signal anyway.
>>> Those that can would fail to clean up things if they actually got
>>> interrupted.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Christian König <[email protected]>
>
> Alex X: Just a reminder: amdgpu_unpin_work_func is called by work queue.
> Signal is blocked already. un-interruptible waiting might slow thing
> down very slightly.
How so?
Alex X: I said "might". If you think it is not slower, it is fine for me.
My real concern is that the signals are blocked for work queue
already. We don't need this change to avoid unnecessary risk.
In theory, I am not against this change.
I have to agree with that. For waits from work queues it is usually best
to implicitly use un-interruptible waits for documentation purposes.
In other words even when we are sure that the code can't receive a
signal we should write it conservatively.
Christian.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
<http://www.amd.com>
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
