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 get_signal() to tracehook_notify_signal(), kill > fake_signal_wake_up(), and remove freezing() from recalc_sigpending(). > > Probably the same for TIF_PATCH_PENDING, klp_send_signals() can use > set_notify_signal() rather than signal_wake_up(). Totally agree, which is why I liked your suggestion of turning it into a tracehook. I've rebased and collapsed the series with the changes, initial tests look good here. I'll run it through some more testing and send out a v4. I really like that it's down to 3 core patches now, instead of 5, and the last one is just wiring up task_work. The changes you suggested also means it's a lot easier to wire up new archs, so we could potentially have full support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL very quickly and can drop the JOBCTL etc parts. I'll work on that next, if we have agreement that v4 is sound. Thanks a lot for your reviews, Oleg! It might've started out a bit nasty on the RFC front, but with the current direction, we'll end up deleting a lot of extra code on top. -- Jens Axboe
