| Date | Thu, 18 Apr 2024 17:23:08 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [patch V2 25/50] signal: Confine POSIX_TIMERS properly |
| |
On 04/11, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Move the itimer rearming out of the signal code and consolidate all posix > timer related functions in the signal code under one ifdef. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > --- > include/linux/posix-timers.h | 5 + > kernel/signal.c | 125 +++++++++++++++---------------------------- > kernel/time/itimer.c | 22 +++++++ > kernel/time/posix-timers.c | 15 ++++- > 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
A minor nit below...
> --- a/include/linux/posix-timers.h > +++ b/include/linux/posix-timers.h .. > +static inline void posixtimer_rearm_itimer(struct task_struct *p) { } > +static inline void posixtimer_rearm(struct kernel_siginfo *info) { }
Do we really need these 2 nops ? please see below.
..
> + if (unlikely(signr == SIGALRM)) > + posixtimer_rearm_itimer(tsk);
..
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS)) { > + if (unlikely(resched_timer)) > + posixtimer_rearm(info); > }
This looks a bit inconsistent to me.
Can't we change the callsite of posixtimer_rearm_itimer() to check IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS) too,
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS)) { if (unlikely(signr == SIGALRM)) posixtimer_rearm_itimer(tsk); } ?
This will make the code more symmetrical, and we can avoid the dumb definitions of posixtimer_rearm_itimer/posixtimer_rearm.
Oleg.
|