From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, dhowells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (Was: lockdep trace from posix timers)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:01:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120906180100.GA9479@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120826191132.GA3743@redhat.com>
Ping...
Al, will you agree with these changes?
Peter, do you think you can do your make-it-lockless patch (hehe, I
think this is not possible ;) on top?
On 08/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Peter, if you think it can work for you and if you agree with
> > the implementation I will be happy to send the patch.
>
> I think I should try anyway ;)
>
> To simplify the review, I attached the resulting code below.
>
> Changes:
>
> - Comments.
>
> - Not sure this is really better, but task_work_run()
> does not need to actually take pi_lock, unlock_wait
> is enough.
>
> However, in this case the dummy entry is better than
> the fake pointer.
>
> Oleg.
>
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> #include <linux/task_work.h>
> #include <linux/tracehook.h>
>
> static struct callback_head work_exited; /* all we need is ->next == NULL */
>
> int
> task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work, bool notify)
> {
> struct callback_head *head;
>
> do {
> head = ACCESS_ONCE(task->task_works);
> if (unlikely(head == &work_exited))
> return -ESRCH;
> work->next = head;
> } while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, head, work) != head);
>
> if (notify)
> set_notify_resume(task);
> return 0;
> }
>
> struct callback_head *
> task_work_cancel(struct task_struct *task, task_work_func_t func)
> {
> struct callback_head **pprev = &task->task_works;
> struct callback_head *work = NULL;
> unsigned long flags;
> /*
> * If cmpxchg() fails we continue without updating pprev.
> * Either we raced with task_work_add() which added the
> * new entry before this work, we will find it again. Or
> * we raced with task_work_run(), *pprev == NULL/exited.
> */
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> while ((work = ACCESS_ONCE(*pprev))) {
> read_barrier_depends();
> if (work->func != func)
> pprev = &work->next;
> else if (cmpxchg(pprev, work, work->next) == work)
> break;
> }
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
>
> return work;
> }
>
> void task_work_run(void)
> {
> struct task_struct *task = current;
> struct callback_head *work, *head, *next;
>
> for (;;) {
> /*
> * work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
> * work_exited unless the list is empty.
> */
> do {
> work = ACCESS_ONCE(task->task_works);
> head = !work && (task->flags & PF_EXITING) ?
> &work_exited : NULL;
> } while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, work, head) != work);
>
> if (!work)
> break;
> /*
> * Synchronize with task_work_cancel(). It can't remove
> * the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) should
> * fail, but it can play with *work and other entries.
> */
> raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);
> smp_mb();
>
> /* Reverse the list to run the works in fifo order */
> head = NULL;
> do {
> next = work->next;
> work->next = head;
> head = work;
> work = next;
> } while (work);
>
> work = head;
> do {
> next = work->next;
> work->func(work);
> work = next;
> cond_resched();
> } while (work);
> }
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-06 17:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-24 20:36 lockdep trace from posix timers Dave Jones
2012-07-27 16:20 ` Dave Jones
2012-08-16 12:54 ` Ming Lei
2012-08-16 14:03 ` Dave Jones
2012-08-16 18:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-17 15:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-17 15:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-17 16:40 ` task_work_add() should not succeed unconditionally (Was: lockdep trace from posix timers) Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 7:15 ` lockdep trace from posix timers Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 11:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 11:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 12:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-08-20 12:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 14:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 16:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:41 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 16:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 16:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 16:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-21 18:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-21 18:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-24 18:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:11 ` [PATCH 0/4] (Was: lockdep trace from posix timers) Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 1/4] task_work: make task_work_add() lockless Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-14 6:08 ` [tip:core/urgent] task_work: Make " tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-24 19:27 ` [PATCH 1/4] task_work: make " Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-09-24 20:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 2/4] task_work: task_work_add() should not succeed after exit_task_work() Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-14 6:09 ` [tip:core/urgent] " tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 3/4] task_work: revert d35abdb2 "hold task_lock around checks in keyctl" Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-14 6:10 ` [tip:core/urgent] task_work: Revert " hold " tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 4/4] task_work: simplify the usage in ptrace_notify() and get_signal_to_deliver() Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-14 6:11 ` [tip:core/urgent] task_work: Simplify " tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-06 18:01 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-09-06 18:35 ` [PATCH 0/4] (Was: lockdep trace from posix timers) Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-07 13:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-28 16:29 ` lockdep trace from posix timers Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-28 17:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-28 17:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-28 17:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-29 15:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20120906180100.GA9479@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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.