From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:27:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080412122724.0897d881.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080412141250.GK11962@parisc-linux.org>
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:12:51 -0600 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:09:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:27:54 -0700 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > Looks good to me. Thanks.
> >
> > Yup, most excellent.
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> > btw, down() and friends should have might_sleep() checks in them, shouldn't
> > they? They don't seem to be in there, nor in mainline
> > lib/semaphore-sleepers.c. Confused.
>
> Mmm. Ingo gets annoyed when I add additional checks to semaphores -- he
> wants them to maintain their current semantics and to get better checking
> by migrating more users to mutexes. I've already exposed at least one
> problem (in aacraid) by adding the __must_check to down_interruptible().
>
> As I wrote in one of the comments, we have places in the kernel which
> know that even though they're in a non-sleeping context, there is at
> least one more token left in the semaphore. One place this bit me was
> in start_kernel(). We disable interrupts and then call lock_kernel()
> which calls down(). Since we're in start_kernel(), we know there's
> nothing else running and this is perfectly safe. But a might_sleep()
> would warn bogusly.
urgh, yes, I'd forgotten about that mess.
I suppose that if might_sleep() checking in down() is useful (and surely it
is) we could provide a separate down_im_stupid() (and
lock_kernel_im_stupid()) which omits the check, and call that from the
problematic sites.
> I'd be open to putting a might_sleep() in __down(). We definitely are
> going to sleep at that point, so getting a warning out of it would
> be good.
I think it'd be worth playing with some time, but it's off-topic for this
current work.
> I thought that schedule() would warn itself in that case,
> but I can't see the code that would do that now I check.
schedule() will warn ("scheduling while atomic"), but only if we happened
to hit contention.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-12 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20080410143403.c03757e5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
[not found] ` <20080410220816.GY11962@parisc-linux.org>
[not found] ` <20080410151907.91f11c74.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2008-04-11 19:21 ` [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation Matthew Wilcox
2008-04-11 20:27 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-04-12 5:09 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-12 14:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-04-12 19:27 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-04-15 8:24 ` David Woodhouse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080412122724.0897d881.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=harvey.harrison@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.