On 11/02, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Note also that wake_up_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) won't wakeup the TASK_IDLE > > kthreads, and most of the kthreads which use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE should use > > TASK_IDLE today, because in most cases TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE was used to not > > contribute to loadavg. > > Yes. Unfortunately, we have TASK_IDLE for more than two years now and > nothing much has happened yet. TASK_IDLE is still used sporadically. I'd > like to be on the safe side with livepatch OK, as I said I won't argue, > and given that > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE loops should be prepared for spurious wakeups by > definition, Not really when it comes to kthreads. Once again, unless kthread does allow_signal() TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE does not really differ from TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE except the latter contributes to loadavg. And that is why TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE was commonly used instead of TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, so I do not think that TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE loops are more ready in general than TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
