From: Martin Wirth <martin.wirth@epost.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:14:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C58622D.6B0265ED@epost.de> (raw)
Hi,
This is just a general idea I had a few month ago and might be of some
value
for the replacement of BKL or longheld spinlocks in the future 2.5
developement.
While writing some device driver for a real-time data acquisition I had
a
similar problem. I had to protect some driver data structure that is
heavily accessed from multiple processes for merely reading a few
variables
consistently. But from time to time there are bigger tasks to be done,
where
holding a spinlock is not appropriate.
So I used a combination of a spinlock and a semaphore. You can lock this
combilock for short-term issues in a spin-lock mode:
combi_spin_lock(struct combilock *x)
combi_spin_unlock(struct combilock *x)
and for longer lasting tasks in a semaphore mode by:
combi_mutex_lock(struct combilock *x)
combi_mutex_unlock(struct combilock *x)
If a spin-lock request is blocked by a mutex-lock, the spin-lock
attempt also sleeps i.e. behaves like a semaphore.
This approach is less automatic than a first_spin_then_sleep mutex,
but normally the programmer knows better if he is going to do quick
things, or
maybe maybe unbounded stuff.
Note: For a preemtible kernel this approach could lead to much less
scheduling ping-pong also for UP if a spinlock is replaced by a
combilock
instead of a semaphore.
The code is quite simple and borrowed a bit from the completion handler
stuff
in sched.c. (Of course the owner could be a simple flag, but I had some
later
extension to a priority inheritance scheme in mind).
struct combilock {
wait_queue_head_t wait;
task_t *owner;
};
void combi_spin_lock(struct combilock *x)
{
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
if (x->owner) {
DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
wait.flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
__add_wait_queue_tail(&x->wait, &wait);
do {
__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
schedule();
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
} while (x->owner);
__remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
}
}
void combi_spin_unlock(struct combilock *x)
{
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
}
void combi_mutex_lock(struct combilock *x)
{
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
if (x->owner) {
DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
wait.flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
__add_wait_queue_tail(&x->wait, &wait);
do {
__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
schedule();
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
} while (x->owner);
__remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
} else
x->owner=current;
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
}
void combi_mutex_unlock(struct combilock *x)
{
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
x->owner=NULL;
__wake_up_common(&x->wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
1, 0);
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
}
Martin Wirth
next reply other threads:[~2002-01-30 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-30 21:14 Martin Wirth [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-02-01 19:29 [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek John Hawkes
2002-01-31 15:39 Martin Wirth
2002-01-31 21:06 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-01-30 0:00 Robert Love
2002-01-30 0:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-30 0:41 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 0:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-30 2:24 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 1:26 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-30 2:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-30 2:20 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 2:20 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-30 2:21 ` Dave Jones
2002-01-30 2:37 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 2:50 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-01-30 3:19 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-30 9:34 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-01-30 10:36 ` Russell King
2002-01-30 4:54 ` Alexander Viro
2002-01-30 8:00 ` Trond Myklebust
2002-01-30 13:39 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 4:50 ` Anton Blanchard
2002-01-30 5:03 ` Robert Love
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=3C58622D.6B0265ED@epost.de \
--to=martin.wirth@epost.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.