On 10/2/20 7:49 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02 2020 at 17:38, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it's fundamentaly wrong that we have several places and several
>>> flags which handle task_work_run() instead of having exactly one place
>>> and one
On Fri, Oct 02 2020 at 17:38, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> I think it's fundamentaly wrong that we have several places and several
>> flags which handle task_work_run() instead of having exactly one place
>> and one flag.
>
> Damn yes, agreed.
Actually there are
On 10/2/20 1:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02 2020 at 09:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/2/20 9:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
This way task_work_run() doesn't need to clear TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL and it can
have more users.
>>>
>>> I think it's fundamentaly wrong that we have
On Fri, Oct 02 2020 at 09:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/2/20 9:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> This way task_work_run() doesn't need to clear TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL and it can
>>> have more users.
>>
>> I think it's fundamentaly wrong that we have several places and several
>> flags which handle
On 10/2/20 9:52 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/2/20 9:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 02 2020 at 17:14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> Heh. To be honest I don't really like 1-2 ;)
>>
>> I do not like any of this :)
>>
>>> So I think that if we are going to add TIF_TASKWORK we should
On 10/2/20 9:38 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> I think it's fundamentaly wrong that we have several places and several
>> flags which handle task_work_run() instead of having exactly one place
>> and one flag.
>
> Damn yes, agreed.
As mentioned in the other
On 10/2/20 9:14 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Heh. To be honest I don't really like 1-2 ;)
>
> Unfortunately, I do not see a better approach right now. Let me think
> until Monday, it is not that I think I will find a better solution, but
> I'd like to try anyway.
>
> Let me comment 3/3 for now.
On 10/2/20 9:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02 2020 at 17:14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> Heh. To be honest I don't really like 1-2 ;)
>
> I do not like any of this :)
>
>> So I think that if we are going to add TIF_TASKWORK we should generalize
>> this logic and turn it into
On 10/02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> I think it's fundamentaly wrong that we have several places and several
> flags which handle task_work_run() instead of having exactly one place
> and one flag.
Damn yes, agreed.
Oleg.
On Fri, Oct 02 2020 at 17:14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Heh. To be honest I don't really like 1-2 ;)
I do not like any of this :)
> So I think that if we are going to add TIF_TASKWORK we should generalize
> this logic and turn it into TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL. Similar to TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME
> but implies
Heh. To be honest I don't really like 1-2 ;)
Unfortunately, I do not see a better approach right now. Let me think
until Monday, it is not that I think I will find a better solution, but
I'd like to try anyway.
Let me comment 3/3 for now.
On 10/01, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> +static void
If the arch supports TIF_TASKWORK, 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.
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
---
kernel/task_work.c | 48
12 matches
Mail list logo
