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 task_work_run() instead of having exactly one place >> and one flag. > > I don't disagree with that. I know it's not happening in this series, but > if we to the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL route and get all archs supporting that, > then we can kill the signal and notify resume part of running task_work. > And that leaves us with exactly one place that runs it. > > So we can potentially improve the current situation in that regard. I'll think about it over the weekend.
