Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 02/11] task_isolation: add initial support | From | Chris Metcalf <> | Date | Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:25:59 -0400 |
| |
On 10/01/2015 08:14 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: >> diff --git a/include/linux/isolation.h b/include/linux/isolation.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..fd04011b1c1e >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/include/linux/isolation.h >> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ >> +/* >> + * Task isolation related global functions >> + */ >> +#ifndef _LINUX_ISOLATION_H >> +#define _LINUX_ISOLATION_H >> + >> +#include <linux/tick.h> >> +#include <linux/prctl.h> >> + >> +#ifdef CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION >> +static inline bool task_isolation_enabled(void) >> +{ >> + return tick_nohz_full_cpu(smp_processor_id()) && >> + (current->task_isolation_flags & PR_TASK_ISOLATION_ENABLE); > Ok, I may be a bit burdening with that but, how about using the regular > existing task flags, and if needed later we can still introduce a new field > in struct task_struct?
The problem is still that we have two basic bits ("enabled" and "strict") plus eight bits of signal number to override SIGKILL. So we end up with *something* extra in task_struct no matter what. And, right now it's conveniently the same value as the bits passed to prctl(), so we don't need to marshall and unmarshall the prctl() get/set results.
If we could convince ourselves not to do the "settable signal" stuff I'd agree that use task flags makes sense, but I was convinced for v2 of the patch series to add a settable signal, and I suspect it still does make sense.
>> + while (READ_ONCE(dev->next_event.tv64) != KTIME_MAX) { > You should add a function in tick-sched.c to get the next tick. This > is supposed to be a private field.
Yes. Or probably better, a function that just says whether the timer is quiesced. Obviously I'll wait to hear what Thomas says on this subject first, though.
>> + if (!warned && (jiffies - start) >= (5 * HZ)) { >> + pr_warn("%s/%d: cpu %d: task_isolation task blocked for %ld seconds\n", >> + task->comm, task->pid, smp_processor_id(), >> + (jiffies - start) / HZ); >> + warned = true; >> + } >> + cond_resched(); >> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING)) >> + break; > Why not use signal_pending()?
Makes sense, thanks.
> I still think we could try a wait-wake standard scheme.
I'm curious to hear what you make of my arguments in the other thread on this subject!
-- Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor http://www.ezchip.com
| |