From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Ratan Nalumasu <rnalumasu@gmail.com>,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up_parent() to use filtered wakeup
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:21:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090624152143.GB23848@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090624091316.73D0F4059B@magilla.sf.frob.com>
On 06/24, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> Looks good, I'm glad to see this revived.
>
> I note that even simpler than eligible_child() is just:
I think the check below is orthogonal to eligible_child(). Not sure
eligible_child() can really help, but otoh it is cheap and doesn't hurt.
But perhaps we can kill it later.
> if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && wo->child_wait.private != p->parent)
> return 0;
>
> IIRC that is the test that Ratan's original patch used to address the
> particular application usage that first troubled him.
Aha, now I see what was the problem with Ratan's workload.
> But probably this
> is already what you meant by "more clever later"
I didn't mean this particular optimization, but it looks good to me.
> (and ->parent is perhaps
> not right in all cases there).
I think this is right... Except I'd like to avoid using ->parent.
> Your two patches as they are look safe and useful to me and I hope they can
> go in soon.
Thanks.
Yes I think these 2 patches should be applied first, even if eligible_child()
itself doesn't buy much. It will be cleaner if we add "real" checks on top.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-24 18:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-22 17:04 [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up_parent() to use filtered wakeup Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-24 9:13 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-24 15:21 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-06-24 18:57 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-24 16:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-24 19:42 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-24 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-24 20:51 ` Roland McGrath
[not found] ` <93ad5f3f0906252111n48742b9ax8dc2ad35b30f4292@mail.gmail.com>
2009-06-29 3:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-29 23:08 ` [rfc] do not place sub-threads on task_struct->children list Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-30 19:30 ` Roland McGrath
2009-07-01 5:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-30 19:22 ` [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up_parent() to use filtered wakeup Roland McGrath
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=20090624152143.GB23848@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rnalumasu@gmail.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=vmayatsk@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.