On 10/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 03:52:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > If yes, then wakeups from signals don't work either, right?
> >
> > Its a kthread, there should not be any signals.
>
> That said, in the tty patch we do appear to have this problem.
>
> Oleg, do we want something like the below on top to make that work
> again?
>
> ---
> --- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> @@ -326,8 +326,10 @@ long wait_woken(wait_queue_t *wait, unsi
> * woken_wake_function() such that if we observe WQ_FLAG_WOKEN we must
> * also observe all state before the wakeup.
> */
> - if (!(wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN))
> - timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> + if (!(wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN)) {
> + if (___wait_is_interruptible(mode) &&
> !signal_pending_state(mode, current))
> + timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> + }
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
I am a bit confused... but for what?
schedule() won't sleep if signal_pending_state(mode) anyway, so we
do not need this correctness-wise. And the caller needs to check
signal_pending() anyway.
We can probably add
if (signal_pending_state(mode, current))
return -EINTR;
at the start of wait_woken(), even before set_current_state(mode).
Then the caller can check "ret < 0" and avoid signal_pending().
Not sure this makes sense.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
