On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:48:18AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > While reviewing RCU's interruptible swaits I noticed signals were actually > > not expected. Paul explained that the reason signals are not expected is > > we use kthreads, which don't get signals, furthermore the code avoided the > > uninterruptible swaits as otherwise it would contribute to the system load > > average on idle, bumping it from 0 to 2 or 3 (depending on preemption). > > > > Since this can be confusing its best to be explicit about the requirements > > and > > goals. This patch depends on the other killable swaits [0] recently > > proposed as > > well interms of context. Thee patch can however be tested independently if > > the hunk is addressed separately. > > > > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> > > Are you looking to push these or were you wanting me to?
I'd be happy for you to take them. Luis
