On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 22:17, John Stultz <jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 5:30 AM Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > POSIX timers using the CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID clock prefer the main
> > thread of a thread group for signal delivery. However, this has a
> > significant downside: it requires waking up a potentially idle thread.
> >
> > Instead, prefer to deliver signals to the current thread (in the same
> > thread group) if SIGEV_THREAD_ID is not set by the user. This does not
> > change guaranteed semantics, since POSIX process CPU time timers have
> > never guaranteed that signal delivery is to a specific thread (without
> > SIGEV_THREAD_ID set).
> >
> > The effect is that we no longer wake up potentially idle threads, and
> > the kernel is no longer biased towards delivering the timer signal to
> > any particular thread (which better distributes the timer signals esp.
> > when multiple timers fire concurrently).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Apologies for drudging up this old thread.
>
> I wanted to ask if anyone had objections to including this in the -stable trees?
>
> After this and the follow-on patch e797203fb3ba
> ("selftests/timers/posix_timers: Test delivery of signals across
> threads") landed, folks testing older kernels with the latest
> selftests started to see the new test checking for this behavior to
> stall. Thomas did submit an adjustment to the test here to avoid the
> stall: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230606142031.071059989@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/,
> but it didn't seem to land, however that would just result in the test
> failing instead of hanging.
>
> This change does seem to cherry-pick cleanly back to at least
> stable/linux-5.10.y cleanly, so it looks simple to pull this change
> back. But I wanted to make sure there wasn't anything subtle I was
> missing before sending patches.
I don't have objections per se. But I wonder how other tests deal with
such situations. It should happen for any test for new functionality.
Can we do the same other tests are doing?
