Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: introduce add_wait_queue_exclusive_head

From: Peng Tao
Date: Tue Mar 18 2014 - 22:23:28 EST

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/18, Peng Tao wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Unless you cannot use ___wait() and really need to open-code the
>> > wait_event() stuff.
>> >
>> Lustre's private l_wait_event() stuff takes care to (un)mask
> Hmm. This is off-topic but after the quick grep LUSTRE_FATAL_SIGS/etc
> looks suspicious.
> Firtsly, cfs_block_sigs/cfs_block_sigsinv/etc are not exactly right,
> they need set_current_blocked(). And you can read "old" lockless.
It seems that set_current_blocked() is not exported. Can we ask to export it?

And looking at other similar places like coda_block_signals(), it
doesn't call set_current_blocked() either. So it needs
set_current_blocked() as well.

> And note that cfs_block_sigsinv(0) (which should block all signals)
> can't actually protect from SIGKILL (or in fact from another fatal
> signal) or SIGSTOP if the caller is multithreaded. Or ptrace, or
> freezer.
>> and always wait in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state.
> and it seems that __wstate passed to waitq_wait/waitq_timedwait is
> simply ignored.
Yes. That needs to be dropped.

>> It looks to me that we can at least wrap l_wait_event() on top of
>> wait_event_interruptible/wait_event_timeout_interruptible.
> l_wait_event looks really complicated ;) but perhaps you can rewrite
> it on top of ___wait_event(), note that condition/cmd can do anything
> you want.
Yeah, I meant to say __wait_event(). Thanks for correcting me.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at