Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Nov 2017 15:08:53 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks |
| |
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.
| |