On Wed, Apr 03 2024 at 17:03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/03, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> The test if fragile as hell as there is absolutely no guarantee that the
>> signal target distribution is as expected. The expectation is based on a
>> statistical assumption which does not really hold.
>
> Agreed. I too never liked this test-case.
>
> I forgot everything about this patch and test-case, I can't really read
> your patch right now (sorry), so I am sure I missed something, but
>
>> static void *distribution_thread(void *arg)
>> {
>> - while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED));
>> - return NULL;
>> + while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) && !done) {
>> + if (got_signal)
>> + usleep(10);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return (void *)got_signal;
>> }
>
> Why distribution_thread() can't simply exit if got_signal != 0 ?
>
> See https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230128195641.GA14906@xxxxxxxxxx/
Indeed. It's too obvious :)
