Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] task_work: use TIF_TASKWORK if available
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org
References: <20201001194208.1153522-1-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <20201001194208.1153522-4-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <20201002151415.GA29066@redhat.com> <871rigejb8.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20201002153849.GC29066@redhat.com> <87o8lkcc4z.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <9c1a3233-b359-85ee-34cc-6b7bf6244a4d@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sat, 3 Oct 2020 09:35:25 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87o8lkcc4z.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/2/20 7:49 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02 2020 at 17:38, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it's fundamentaly wrong that we have several places and several
>>> flags which handle task_work_run() instead of having exactly one place
>>> and one flag.
>>
>> Damn yes, agreed.
> 
> Actually there are TWO places, but they don't interfere:
> 
>    1) exit to user
> 
>    2) enter guest
> 
> From the kernel POV they are pretty much the same as both are leaving
> the kernel domain. But they have a few subtle different requirements
> what has to be done or not.
> 
> So any change to that logic needs to fixup both places,

Right, I actually did spot that, but didn't include it in the initial
series. I've split up the series a bit more, into functional bits.
Should be easier to reason/discuss:

https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=tif-task_work

-- 
Jens Axboe