[PATCH 1/2] signal: Add proper comment about the preempt-disable in ptrace_stop().

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

Commit 53da1d9456fe7 ("fix ptrace slowness") added a preempt-disable section
between read_unlock() and the following schedule() invocation without
explaining why it is needed.

Replace the comment with an explanation why this is needed. Clarify that
it is needed for correctness but for performance reasons.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 kernel/signal.c |   17 ++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -2337,10 +2337,21 @@ static int ptrace_stop(int exit_code, in
 		do_notify_parent_cldstop(current, false, why);
 
 	/*
-	 * Don't want to allow preemption here, because
-	 * sys_ptrace() needs this task to be inactive.
+	 * The previous do_notify_parent_cldstop() invocation woke ptracer.
+	 * One a PREEMPTION kernel this can result in preemption requirement
+	 * which will be fulfilled after read_unlock() and the ptracer will be
+	 * put on the CPU.
+	 * The ptracer is in wait_task_inactive(, __TASK_TRACED) waiting for
+	 * this task wait in schedule(). If this task gets preempted then it
+	 * remains enqueued on the runqueue. The ptracer will observe this and
+	 * then sleep for a delay of one HZ tick. In the meantime this task
+	 * gets scheduled, enters schedule() and will wait for the ptracer.
 	 *
-	 * XXX: implement read_unlock_no_resched().
+	 * This preemption point is not bad from correctness point of view but
+	 * extends the runtime by one HZ tick time due to the ptracer's sleep.
+	 * The preempt-disable section ensures that there will be no preemption
+	 * between unlock and schedule() and so improving the performance since
+	 * the ptracer has no reason to sleep.
 	 */
 	preempt_disable();
 	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);