All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/wait: avoid abort_exclusive_wait() in __wait_on_bit_lock()
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:06:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160902120642.GC26495@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160901221743.GJ10168@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 09/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> FWIW, the way the mutex code avoids this issue is by doing the
> signal_pending test while holding the q->lock, that way its exclusive
> with wakeup.

And __wait_event_interruptible_locked() too.

BTW it is buggy anyway, it needs the

	-	__add_wait_queue_tail(&(wq), &__wait);
	+	if (exclusive)
	+		__add_wait_queue_tail(&(wq), &__wait);
	+	else
	+		__add_wait_queue((&(wq), &__wait);

and in fact it should use __add_wait_queue_exclusive() so that we
can remove another "if (exclusive)" but this is off-topic.

Yes, I considered this option, but to me the addtional finish_wait()
looks simpler.

And, if you agree with this change I will try to change __wait_event()
as well and kill abort_exclusive_wait().

And in this case we certainly do not want to check the "condition" with
q->lock held, because this would mean that "condition" won't be able to
take this lock.

Oleg.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-02 12:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-26 12:44 [PATCH 0/2] sched/wait: abort_exclusive_wait() should pass TASK_NORMAL to wake_up() Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-26 12:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-01 11:39   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-01 17:26     ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-01 18:09       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-26 12:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/wait: avoid abort_exclusive_wait() in __wait_on_bit_lock() Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-26 12:47   ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-01 19:01   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-01 19:08     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-02 12:06       ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-01 22:17     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-02 12:06       ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2016-09-02 13:20         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-02 12:06     ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-09-01 11:03 ` [PATCH 0/2] sched/wait: abort_exclusive_wait() should pass TASK_NORMAL to wake_up() Peter Zijlstra
     [not found] <00e501d201cf$7bfecd40$73fc67c0$@alibaba-inc.com>
2016-08-29  8:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/wait: avoid abort_exclusive_wait() in __wait_on_bit_lock() Hillf Danton
2016-08-29 13:48   ` 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=20160902120642.GC26495@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --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.