On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:53:09PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:31 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: mm/madvise: check fatal signal pending of target process > > > > Bail out to prevent unnecessary CPU overhead if target process has pending > > fatal signal during (MADV_COLD|MADV_PAGEOUT) operation. > > This seems bogus. > > Returning -EINTR when *SOMEBODY ELSE* has a signal is crazy talk. It doesn't propagate -EINTR to the user but just aiming for canceling the entire operation. > > It also seems to be the reason for the previous patches inexplicably > passing in the task pointer. > > Finally, it has absolutely no explanations for why this would matter, > and why it's magically and suddenly an issue for process_madvise(), > when in the history of the *real* madvise() this hasn't been an issue > for "current". Currently, madvise(MADV_COLD|PAGEOUT) already have done it. I just wanted to sync with it with process_madvise. Ting was process_madvise couldn't get target task while madvise could get it easily. > > I'm dropping the madvise() series. > > If the issue is that you can generate a long series or areas with that > iovec, maybe the code should re-consider. Or maybe the signal pending > case should be done there, not passing down an odd task pointer to the > low-level madvise code. Do you mean you want to drop target signal check madvise as well as process_madvise?
