From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
fredrik.markstrom@windriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: lockless wake-queues
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:42:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150420144235.GX27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1429471060-21271-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:17:39PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> +void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + struct wake_q_node *node = &task->wake_q;
> +
> + /*
> + * Atomically grab the task, if ->wake_q is !nil already it means
> + * its already queued (either by us or someone else) and will get the
> + * wakeup due to that.
> + *
> + * This cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, which pairs with the write
> + * barrier implied by the wakeup in wake_up_list().
> + */
> + if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
> + return;
> +
> + get_task_struct(task);
> +
> + /*
> + * The head is context local, there can be no concurrency.
> + */
> + if (head->first == WAKE_Q_TAIL)
> + head->first = node;
> + else
> + head->last->next = node;
> +
> + head->last = node;
> +}
Do we want a sched_feat() that makes the above to an immediate wake-up
instead of the fancy thing? -- just for debuging/performance
measurements like things?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-20 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-19 19:17 [PATCH 0/2] lockless wake-queues Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-19 19:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched: " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-20 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-04-19 19:17 ` [PATCH 2/2] futex: lockless wakeups Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-20 6:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-20 13:55 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-20 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-20 17:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-20 16:04 ` Linus Torvalds
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-04-20 18:24 [PATCH 1/2] sched: lockless wake-queues George Spelvin
2015-04-20 20:08 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-21 1:39 ` George Spelvin
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=20150420144235.GX27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=fredrik.markstrom@windriver.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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.