Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

2020-10-14 Thread Jens Axboe
On 10/13/20 5:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Jens, > > On Tue, Oct 13 2020 at 13:39, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 10/12/20 11:27 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: >> I'm continuing to hone the series, what's really missing so far is arch >> review. Most conversions are straight forward, some I need folks to

Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

2020-10-13 Thread Thomas Gleixner
Jens, On Tue, Oct 13 2020 at 13:39, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/12/20 11:27 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: > I'm continuing to hone the series, what's really missing so far is arch > review. Most conversions are straight forward, some I need folks to > definitely take a look at (arm, s390). powerpc is

Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

2020-10-13 Thread Jens Axboe
On 10/12/20 11:27 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2020, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 10/9/20 9:21 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 10/9/20 2:01 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The

Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

2020-10-12 Thread Miroslav Benes
On Sat, 10 Oct 2020, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/9/20 9:21 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 10/9/20 2:01 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: > >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > >> > >>> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Hi, > > The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL

Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

2020-10-10 Thread Jens Axboe
On 10/9/20 9:21 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/9/20 2:01 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> >>> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote: Hi, The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work from real signals and signal

Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

2020-10-09 Thread Jens Axboe
On 10/9/20 2:01 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > >> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work >>> from real signals and signal delivery. >> >> I think TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL can have

Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

2020-10-09 Thread Miroslav Benes
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work > > from real signals and signal delivery. > > I think TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL can have more users. Say, we can move > try_to_freeze() from

Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

2020-10-08 Thread Jens Axboe
On 10/8/20 8:56 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work >> from real signals and signal delivery. > > I think TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL can have more users. Say, we can move > try_to_freeze() from

Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

2020-10-08 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Hi, > > The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work > from real signals and signal delivery. I think TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL can have more users. Say, we can move try_to_freeze() from get_signal() to tracehook_notify_signal(), kill