"Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:26:19AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> 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. > > OK, let's see if we can get some Acked-by's or Reviewed-by's from the > relevant people. > > For but one example, Eric, does this look good to you or are adjustments > needed?
Other than an unnecessary return code I don't see any issues. Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]> In truth I am just barely ahead of you folks. I ran into the same issue the other day with a piece of my code and someone pointed me to TASK_IDLE. Eric
