From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:44:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141004084459.GU10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141003175654.GA14952@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 862 bytes --]
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 07:56:54PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Or. perhaps we can change wait_woken
>
> - set_current_state(mode);
> + if (mode)
> + set_current_state(mode);
>
>
> then rfcomm_run() can do
>
> for (;;) {
> rfcomm_process_sessions();
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (kthread_should_stop())
> break;
> wait_woken(0);
> }
>
> Or perhaps we can split wait_woken() into 2 helpers,
>
> static inline long wait_woken(wq, mode, timeout)
> {
> set_current_state(mode);
> schedule_woken(wq, timeout); // does the rest
> }
>
> to avoid "mode == 0" hack; rfcomm_run() should use schedule_woken().
>
> What do you think?
Clever, I'm not entirely sure which I prefer, I think I'm leaning
towards the first one with the !mode hack, but let me sit on that for a
little while.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Jet Chen <jet.chen@intel.com>, Su Tao <tao.su@intel.com>,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@intel.com>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 10:44:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141004084459.GU10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141003175654.GA14952@redhat.com>
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 07:56:54PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Or. perhaps we can change wait_woken
>
> - set_current_state(mode);
> + if (mode)
> + set_current_state(mode);
>
>
> then rfcomm_run() can do
>
> for (;;) {
> rfcomm_process_sessions();
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (kthread_should_stop())
> break;
> wait_woken(0);
> }
>
> Or perhaps we can split wait_woken() into 2 helpers,
>
> static inline long wait_woken(wq, mode, timeout)
> {
> set_current_state(mode);
> schedule_woken(wq, timeout); // does the rest
> }
>
> to avoid "mode == 0" hack; rfcomm_run() should use schedule_woken().
>
> What do you think?
Clever, I'm not entirely sure which I prefer, I think I'm leaning
towards the first one with the !mode hack, but let me sit on that for a
little while.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-04 8:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-30 8:02 [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep() Fengguang Wu
2014-10-02 11:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 11:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:38 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 12:38 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:05 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 13:05 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 13:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:49 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 13:49 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 13:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 14:16 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 14:16 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 19:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 19:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 19:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 19:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 19:49 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 19:49 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 19:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 19:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 20:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 20:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-03 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-03 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-03 17:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-03 17:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-03 19:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-03 19:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-04 8:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-04 8:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-06 0:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-06 0:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-06 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-06 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-06 10:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-06 10:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-06 16:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-06 16:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-04 8:44 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-10-04 8:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20141004084459.GU10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.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.