All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Chuck Lever <cel@citi.umich.edu>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:30:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090123133050.GA19226@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090123113541.GB12684@redhat.com>

On 01/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> It is no that I think this new helper is really needed for this
> particular case, personally I agree with the patch you sent.
>
> But if we have other places with the similar problem, then perhaps
> it is better to introduce the special finish_wait_exclusive() or
> whatever.

To clarify, I suggest something like this.

	int finish_wait_exclusive(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait,
					int ret, int state, void *key)
	{
		unsigned long flags;

		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);

		if (ret || !list_empty_careful(&wait->task_list)) {
			spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
			if (list_empty(&wait->task_list))
				 __wake_up_common(q, state, 1, key);
			else
				list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
		}

		return ret;
	}

Now, __wait_on_bit_lock() becomes:

	int __sched
	__wait_on_bit_lock(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct wait_bit_queue *q,
				int (*action)(void *), unsigned mode)
	{
		int ret = 0;

		do {
			prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, mode);
			if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags) &&
			   (ret = (*action)(q->key.flags))
				break;
		} while (test_and_set_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags));

		return finish_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, ret, mode, &q->key);
	}

And __wait_event_interruptible_exclusive:

	#define __wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(wq, condition, ret)	\
	do {									\
		DEFINE_WAIT(__wait);						\
										\
		for (;;) {							\
			prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&wq, &__wait,			\
						TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);		\
			if (condition)						\
				break;						\
			if (!signal_pending(current)) {				\
				schedule();					\
				continue;					\
			}							\
			ret = -ERESTARTSYS;					\
			break;							\
		}								\
		finish_wait_exclusive(&wq, &__wait,				\
					ret, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, NULL);		\
	} while (0)

But I can't convince myself this is what we really want. So I am not
sending the patch. And yes, we have to check ret twice.

Oleg.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Chuck Lever <cel@citi.umich.edu>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:30:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090123133050.GA19226@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090123113541.GB12684@redhat.com>

On 01/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> It is no that I think this new helper is really needed for this
> particular case, personally I agree with the patch you sent.
>
> But if we have other places with the similar problem, then perhaps
> it is better to introduce the special finish_wait_exclusive() or
> whatever.

To clarify, I suggest something like this.

	int finish_wait_exclusive(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait,
					int ret, int state, void *key)
	{
		unsigned long flags;

		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);

		if (ret || !list_empty_careful(&wait->task_list)) {
			spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
			if (list_empty(&wait->task_list))
				 __wake_up_common(q, state, 1, key);
			else
				list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
		}

		return ret;
	}

Now, __wait_on_bit_lock() becomes:

	int __sched
	__wait_on_bit_lock(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct wait_bit_queue *q,
				int (*action)(void *), unsigned mode)
	{
		int ret = 0;

		do {
			prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, mode);
			if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags) &&
			   (ret = (*action)(q->key.flags))
				break;
		} while (test_and_set_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags));

		return finish_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, ret, mode, &q->key);
	}

And __wait_event_interruptible_exclusive:

	#define __wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(wq, condition, ret)	\
	do {									\
		DEFINE_WAIT(__wait);						\
										\
		for (;;) {							\
			prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&wq, &__wait,			\
						TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);		\
			if (condition)						\
				break;						\
			if (!signal_pending(current)) {				\
				schedule();					\
				continue;					\
			}							\
			ret = -ERESTARTSYS;					\
			break;							\
		}								\
		finish_wait_exclusive(&wq, &__wait,				\
					ret, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, NULL);		\
	} while (0)

But I can't convince myself this is what we really want. So I am not
sending the patch. And yes, we have to check ret twice.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-23 13:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-17 21:51 + lock_page_killable-avoid-lost-wakeups.patch added to -mm tree Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-18  1:38 ` [PATCH v3] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock Johannes Weiner
2009-01-18  1:38   ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-18  2:32   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-18  2:32     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-20 20:31     ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-20 20:31       ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-21 14:36       ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-21 14:36         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-21 21:38         ` [RFC v4] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-21 21:38           ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-22 20:25           ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-22 20:25             ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23  0:26             ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23  0:26               ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23  0:47               ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23  0:47                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 10:07                 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 10:07                   ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 11:05                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 11:05                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 12:36                     ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 12:36                       ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23  9:59             ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-23  9:59               ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-23 11:35               ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 11:35                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 13:30                 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-01-23 13:30                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-26 21:59                   ` [RFC v5] wait: prevent exclusive waiter starvation Johannes Weiner
2009-01-26 21:59                     ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27  3:23                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27  3:23                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 19:34                       ` [RFC v6] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 19:34                         ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 20:05                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 20:05                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 22:31                           ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 22:31                             ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-28  9:14                           ` [RFC v7] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-28  9:14                             ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-29  4:42                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29  4:42                               ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29  7:37                               ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29  7:37                                 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29  8:31                                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29  8:31                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29  9:11                                   ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29  9:11                                     ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 14:34                                     ` Chris Mason
2009-01-29 14:34                                       ` Chris Mason
2009-02-02 15:47                                       ` Chris Mason
2009-02-02 15:47                                         ` Chris Mason
2009-01-23 19:24                 ` [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock Johannes Weiner
2009-01-23 19:24                   ` Johannes Weiner

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=20090123133050.GA19226@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cel@citi.umich.edu \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matthew@wil.cx \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    /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.