Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 17:59:11 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org,
        Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: break out of wait loops on kthread_stop()
Message-ID: <YrslT9h0whngMIhw@zx2c4.com>
References: <YrnEvjcG8tmF3dRV@zx2c4.com>
 <20220627145716.641185-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <877d51udc7.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <877d51udc7.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Eric,

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 02:16:08PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Semantically this makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Bloating up signal_pending which is mainly called in non-kthread
> contexts is undesirable.

I guess I understand that concern, but does it really matter here? This
is called by code that waits anyway, so it's not like performance
matters at all, right?

> Instead could you modify kthread_stop to call set_notify_signal().
> 
> That is exactly what set_notify_signal is there for.  When you don't
> actually have a signal but you want to break out of an interruptible
> loop.  My last round of work in the area decoupled set_notify_signal
> from any other semantics.

This sounds like the best option here, if in fact it does work. I'll
send in a patch for that and we can see how it interacts with the other
work you're doing.

Jason