All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>,
	Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Daire Byrne <Daire.Byrne@framestore.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:35:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <32206.1239658504@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090413181733.GA10424@redhat.com>

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:

> slow_work_thread() sleeps on slow_work_thread_wq without WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE,
> this means that slow_work_enqueue()->__wake_up(nr_exclusive => 1) wakes up
> all kslowd threads. Afaics this is not what we want, change slow_work_thread()
> to use prepare_to_wait_exclusive().

Hmmm...  I think you may be right.  I think I was assuming that wake_up()
would only wake up the first item on the queue, but that's not strictly what
it does...

David

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-04-13 21:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-13 18:17 [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 19:03 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-04-13 19:14   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:40   ` David Howells
2009-04-13 21:48     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:57       ` Trond Myklebust
2009-04-13 22:24         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-15 23:27           ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-16  9:10             ` David Howells
2009-04-16 14:33               ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 13:37                 ` [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full memory barrier David Howells
2009-04-22 13:51                   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 14:39                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 14:56                       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 15:07                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-22 15:12                     ` David Howells
2009-04-22 15:19                       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-22 16:23                       ` David Howells
2009-04-22 17:57                         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 16:32                           ` [PATCH] It may not be assumed that wake_up(), finish_wait() and co. imply a " David Howells
2009-04-23 16:55                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 11:46                               ` David Howells
2009-04-24 15:08                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:08                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 17:43                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:48                                   ` David Howells
2009-04-24 18:06                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-28 10:18                                       ` David Howells
2009-04-28 13:00                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-24 17:28                                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-24 17:53                                   ` David Howells
2009-04-24 18:30                                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-23 17:07                             ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-23 20:35                               ` David Howells
2009-04-23 21:12                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-23 21:24                                   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-23 16:36                           ` [PATCH] Document that wake_up(), complete() and co. imply a full " Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-23 20:37                             ` David Howells
2009-04-23 16:00             ` [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait David Howells
2009-04-23 16:18               ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-04-13 21:35 ` David Howells [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-06-11 12:12 David Howells

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=32206.1239658504@redhat.com \
    --to=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=Daire.Byrne@framestore.com \
    --cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=steved@redhat.com \
    --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.