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: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de
References: <20201005150438.6628-1-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <20201008145610.GK9995@redhat.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <7af78e02-2c4a-ba62-38c0-e927dc5267b7@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:00:52 -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: <20201008145610.GK9995@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/8/20 8:56 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work
>> from real signals and signal delivery.
> 
> I think TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL can have more users. Say, we can move
> try_to_freeze() from get_signal() to tracehook_notify_signal(), kill
> fake_signal_wake_up(), and remove freezing() from recalc_sigpending().
> 
> Probably the same for TIF_PATCH_PENDING, klp_send_signals() can use
> set_notify_signal() rather than signal_wake_up().

Totally agree, which is why I liked your suggestion of turning it into a
tracehook.

I've rebased and collapsed the series with the changes, initial tests
look good here. I'll run it through some more testing and send out a v4.
I really like that it's down to 3 core patches now, instead of 5, and
the last one is just wiring up task_work. The changes you suggested also
means it's a lot easier to wire up new archs, so we could potentially
have full support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL very quickly and can drop the
JOBCTL etc parts.

I'll work on that next, if we have agreement that v4 is sound. Thanks a
lot for your reviews, Oleg! It might've started out a bit nasty on the
RFC front, but with the current direction, we'll end up deleting a lot
of extra code on top.

-- 
Jens Axboe