On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:26:37PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > Secondly, userfaultfd is indeed the only consumer of > > FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE but not necessary always in the future. While > > this patch resolves it for userfaultfd, it might get caught again later if > > something else in the kernel starts to respects the _INTERRUPTIBLE flag > > request. For example, __folio_lock_or_retry() ignores that flag so far, > > but logically it should obey too (with a folio_wait_locked_interruptible).. > > No. Hell, no. We don't want non-fatal signals being able to interrupt > that. There's a reason we introduced killable as a concept in the first > place. Not really proposing that as I don't have a use caes. Just curious, could you explain a bit why having it interruptible is against the killable concept if (IIUC) it is still killable? Thanks, -- Peter Xu
