From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ivo Sieben <meltedpianoman@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: Only wakeup the line discipline idle queue when queue is active
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:45:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130118154504.GA28072@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50F7D8C2.1030506@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 01/17, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>
> On 01/16/2013 05:32 PM, Ivo Sieben wrote:
> >
> > I don't have a problem that there is a context switch to the high
> > priority process: it has a higher priority, so it probably is more
> > important.
> > My problem is that even when the waitqueue is empty, the high priority
> > thread has a risk to block on the spinlock needlessly (causing context
> > switches to low priority task and back to the high priority task)
> >
> Fair enough Ivo.I think you should go ahead with merging the
> waitqueue_active()
> wake_up()
> logic into the wake_up() variants.
This is not easy. We can't simply change wake_up*() helpers or modify
__wake_up().
I can't understand why do you dislike Ivo's simple patch. There are
a lot of "if (waitqueue_active) wake_up" examples. Even if we add the
new helpers (personally I don't think this makes sense) , we can do
this later. Why should we delay this fix?
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-18 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-18 14:48 [PATCH] tty: Only wakeup the line discipline idle queue when queue is active Ivo Sieben
2012-12-18 14:48 ` Ivo Sieben
2013-01-02 9:29 ` Jiri Slaby
2013-01-02 11:43 ` Alan Cox
2013-01-02 15:21 ` Ivo Sieben
2013-01-02 19:06 ` Jiri Slaby
2013-01-03 9:49 ` Ivo Sieben
2013-01-03 18:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-01-15 9:16 ` Ivo Sieben
2013-01-15 18:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-01-16 8:13 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-16 9:16 ` Ivo Sieben
2013-01-16 10:41 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-16 12:02 ` Ivo Sieben
2013-01-17 10:56 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-18 15:45 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-01-21 2:56 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-21 7:20 ` Ivo Sieben
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=20130118154504.GA28072@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=meltedpianoman@gmail.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.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.