From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
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 v6] wait: prevent exclusive waiter starvation
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:31:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090127223116.GA21484@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090127200544.GA28843@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:05:44PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/27, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >
> > +void abort_exclusive_wait(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> > + if (list_empty(&wait->task_list))
>
> Hmm... it should be !list_empty() ?
Yes.
>
> > + list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
> > + /*
> > + * If we were woken through the waitqueue (waker removed
> > + * us from the list) we must ensure the next waiter down
> > + * the line is woken up. The callsite will not do it as
> > + * it didn't finish waiting successfully.
> > + */
> > + else if (waitqueue_active(q))
> > + __wake_up_locked(q, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> > +}
>
> Well, personally I don't care, but this is against CodingStyle rules ;)
I removed it from there and added a note to the kerneldoc.
> > int autoremove_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> > {
> > int ret = default_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
> > @@ -177,17 +218,19 @@ 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 {
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, mode);
> > - if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags)) {
> > - if ((ret = (*action)(q->key.flags)))
> > - break;
> > - }
> > + if (!test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags))
> > + continue;
> > + if (!(ret = action(q->key.flags)))
> > + continue;
> > + abort_exclusive_wait(wq, &q->wait);
>
> No, no. We should use the same key in abort_exclusive_wait().
> Otherwise, how can we wakeup the next waiter which needs this
> bit in the same page->flags?
>
> That is why I suggested finish_wait_exclusive(..., void *key)
> which should we passed to __wake_up_common().
Okay, I am obviously wasting our time now. And I definitely stared so
long at the same three lines that I send randomly broken patches, so
v7 coming after some delay including sleep.
Thanks for your patience,
hannes
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
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 v6] wait: prevent exclusive waiter starvation
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:31:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090127223116.GA21484@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090127200544.GA28843@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:05:44PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/27, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >
> > +void abort_exclusive_wait(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> > + if (list_empty(&wait->task_list))
>
> Hmm... it should be !list_empty() ?
Yes.
>
> > + list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
> > + /*
> > + * If we were woken through the waitqueue (waker removed
> > + * us from the list) we must ensure the next waiter down
> > + * the line is woken up. The callsite will not do it as
> > + * it didn't finish waiting successfully.
> > + */
> > + else if (waitqueue_active(q))
> > + __wake_up_locked(q, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> > +}
>
> Well, personally I don't care, but this is against CodingStyle rules ;)
I removed it from there and added a note to the kerneldoc.
> > int autoremove_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> > {
> > int ret = default_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
> > @@ -177,17 +218,19 @@ 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 {
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, mode);
> > - if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags)) {
> > - if ((ret = (*action)(q->key.flags)))
> > - break;
> > - }
> > + if (!test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags))
> > + continue;
> > + if (!(ret = action(q->key.flags)))
> > + continue;
> > + abort_exclusive_wait(wq, &q->wait);
>
> No, no. We should use the same key in abort_exclusive_wait().
> Otherwise, how can we wakeup the next waiter which needs this
> bit in the same page->flags?
>
> That is why I suggested finish_wait_exclusive(..., void *key)
> which should we passed to __wake_up_common().
Okay, I am obviously wasting our time now. And I definitely stared so
long at the same three lines that I send randomly broken patches, so
v7 coming after some delay including sleep.
Thanks for your patience,
hannes
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-27 22:33 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
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 [this message]
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=20090127223116.GA21484@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cel@citi.umich.edu \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=oleg@redhat.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.