Date:   Sat, 28 Jan 2023 21:15:22 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the
 current thread
Message-ID: <20230128201520.GB14906@redhat.com>
References: <20230126105128.2249938-1-dvyukov@google.com>
 <20230126154118.2393850-1-dvyukov@google.com>
 <CANpmjNM=PVigDZKu-H_-cLECUJKSx7TH+kxSjfF=4UHdrGBj+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <87o7qlgjce.ffs@tglx>
 <CACT4Y+aMLeCo9+nwXrFWo8FLG8rKHDe8v2ppkZ+mOaKAF6qtgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230128195641.GA14906@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230128195641.GA14906@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

Forgot to mention ...

On 01/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Dmitry,
>
> I agree with what you said, just one note...
>
> On 01/27, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >
> > After this change the test passes quickly (within a second for me).
>
> yet perhaps it makes sense to slightly change it? It does
>
> 	+static void *distribution_thr(void *arg) {
> 	+	while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED));
> 	+	return NULL;
> 	+}
>
> so distribution_thr() eats CPU even after this thread gets a signal and thus
> (in theory) it can "steal" cpu_timer_fire() from other threads unpredictably
> long ? How about
>
> 	-	while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED));
> 	+	while (__atomic_load_n(&got_signal, __ATOMIC_RELAXED));
>
> ?

Of course, in this case it also makes sense to change the main() function the
same way and add BUG_ON(remain) after the "for (...) pthread_join()" block.

Oleg.