All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout()
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:37:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130605163702.GA26135@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1370382051.8432.16.camel@ideak-mobl>

On 06/05, Imre Deak wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 00:35 +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 21:28 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we also change wait_event_timeout() ? Say,
> > >
> > > 	#define wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout)			\
> > > 	({									\
> > > 		long __ret = timeout;						\
> > > 		if (!(condition))						\
> > > 			__wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, __ret);		\
> > > 		else if (!__ret)						\
> > > 			__ret = 1;						\
> > > 		__ret;								\
> > > 	})
> > >
> > > Or wait_event_timeout(timeout => 0) is not legal in a non-void context?
> > >
> > > To me the code like
> > >
> > > 	long wait_for_something(bool nonblock)
> > > 	{
> > > 		timeout = nonblock ? 0 : DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
> > > 		return wait_event_timeout(..., timeout);
> > > 	}
> > >
> > > looks reasonable and correct. But it is not?
> >
> > I don't see why it would be not legal. Note though that in the above
> > form wait_event_timeout(cond, 0) would still schedule() if cond is
> > false, which is not what I'd expect from a non-blocking function.

Yes, if false. But what if it is true?

> Ah sorry, if you also rewrite __wait_event_timeout() then timeout=>0
> wouldn't schedule(), so things would work as expected.

Can't understand... probably you missed my point. Let me try again.

I think that wait_eveint_timeout(wq, COND, 0) should return !!(COND).
But it doesn't, for example wait_event_timeout(wq, true, 0) == 0, this
doesn'tlook right to me.

And, this is off-topic, but wait_eveint_timeout/__wait_eveint_timeout
do not match wait_event/__wait_event. IOW, you can't use
__wait_eveint_timeout() if you do not need the fast-path check.

So. How about

	#define __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout)			\
	({									\
		DEFINE_WAIT(__wait);						\
		long __ret = 0, __to = timeout;					\
										\
		for (;;) {							\
			prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);	\
			if (condition) {					\
				__ret = __to ?: 1;				\
				break;						\
			}							\
			if (!__to)						\
				break;						\
			__to = schedule_timeout(__to);				\
		}								\
		finish_wait(&wq, &__wait);					\
		__ret;								\
	})

	#define wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout)			\
	({									\
		long __ret;							\
		if (condition)							\
			__ret = (timeout) ?: 1;					\
		else								\
			__ret = __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout);	\
		__ret;								\
	})

?

Othwerwise we should document the fact that the caller should alvays verify
timeout != 0 if it checks the result of wait_event_timeout().


  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-05 16:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-04 19:28 [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout() Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-04 21:35 ` Imre Deak
2013-06-04 21:40   ` Imre Deak
2013-06-05 16:37     ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-06-05 19:07       ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-06  1:45         ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-06 18:47           ` Oleg Nesterov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-05-02  8:58 Imre Deak
2013-05-02  9:36 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-07 23:12   ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-08  9:49     ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 10:29 ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:02   ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 12:13   ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-02 12:23     ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 12:29       ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:34       ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 12:54         ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 13:56           ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 14:04             ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-02 12:29 ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:35   ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 19:56     ` Imre Deak

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=20130605163702.GA26135@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=davej@redhat.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
    --cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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.