On 02/02, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> > I think we need a simpler patch. I was going to send it as 4/4, but I'd
> > like to think more, _perhaps_ we can also discriminate the PIDFD_THREAD
> > and non-PIDFD_THREAD waiters. I'll try to make the patch(es) tomorrow or
>
> Right, I didn't go that far.
>
> > at least provided more info.
> >
> > 3 notes for now:
> >
> > 1. we can't use wake_up_poll(), it passes nr_exclusive => 1
>
> Bah. So we need the same stuff we did for io_uring and use
> __wake_up() directly. Or we add wake_up_all_poll() and convert the other
> three callsites:
...
> +#define wake_up_all_poll(x, m) \
> + __wake_up(x, TASK_NORMAL, 0, poll_to_key(m))
Agreed, but I think this + s/wake_up/wake_up_all_poll/ conversions
need a separate patch.
> -void do_notify_pidfd(struct task_struct *task)
> +void pidfd_wake_up_poll(struct task_struct *task, bool dead)
> {
> - struct pid *pid;
> -
> WARN_ON(task->exit_state == 0);
> - pid = task_pid(task);
> - wake_up_all(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> + WARN_ON(mask == 0);
> + wake_up_all_poll(&task_pid(task)->wait_pidfd,
> + EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM | dead ? EPOLLHUP : 0);
No...
This is still overcomplicated and is not right.
Christian, I'll write another email tomorrow.
Oleg.
