On 10/08, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 10/8/20 8:21 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Can't we avoid this patch and the and simplify the change in > > exit_to_user_mode_loop() from the next patch? Can't the much more simple > > patch below work? > > > > Then later we can even change arch_do_signal() to accept the additional > > argument, ti_work, so that it can use ti_work & TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL/SIGPENDING > > instead of test_thread_flag/task_sigpending. > > Yeah I guess that would be a bit simpler, maybe I'm too focused on > decoupling the two. But if we go this route, and avoid sighand->lock for > just having TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL set, then that should be functionally > equivalent as far as I'm concerned. Not sure I understand... I think that the change I propose is functionally equivalent or I missed something. > I'll make the reduction, I'd prefer to keep this as small/simple as > possible initially. Great, thanks. Oleg.
