On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:31 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes that sounds reasonable to me, and that matches perfectly with
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and TASK_KILLABLE. The only thing that I am a bit
> uncertain is whether we should define FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE as a
> new bit or make it simply a combination of:
>
> FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE | FAULT_FLAG_USER
It needs to be a new bit, I think.
Some things could potentially care about the difference between "can I
abort this thing because the task will *die* and never see the end
result" and "can I abort this thing because it will be retried".
For a regular page fault, maybe FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTBLE will always be
set for the same things that set FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE when it happens
from user mode, but at least conceptually I think they are different,
and it could make a difference for things like get_user_pages() or
similar.
Also, I actually don't think we should ever expose FAULT_FLAG_USER to
any fault handlers anyway. It has a very specific meaning for memory
cgroup handling, and no other fault handler should likely ever care
about "was this a user fault". So I'd actually prefer for people to
ignore and forget that hacky flag entirely, rather than give it subtle
semantic meaning together with KILLABLE.
[ Side note: this is the point where I may soon lose internet access,
so I'll probably not be able to participate in the discussion any more
for a while ]
Linus
