From: ruben@mrbrklyn.com (Ruben Safir)
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
Subject: wait queues
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 06:20:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55338150.9030007@mrbrklyn.com> (raw)
I'm not pouring over Love's book in detail and the section in Chapter 4
on the wit queue is implemented in the text completely surprised me.
He is recommending that you have to right your own wait queue entry
routine for every process? Isn't that reckless?
He is suggesting
DEFINE_WAIT(wait) //what IS wait
add_wait_queue(q, &wait); // in the current kernel this invovled
// flag checking and a linked list
while(!condition){ /* an event we are weighting for
prepare_to_wait(&q, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
if(signal_pending(current))
/* SIGNAl HANDLE */
schedule();
}
finish_wait(&q, &wait);
He also write how this proceeds to function and one part confuses me
5. When the taks awakens, it again checks whether the condition is
true. If it is, it exists the loop. Otherwise it again calls schedule.
This is not the order that it seems to follow according to the code.
To me it looks like it should
1 - creat2 the wait queue
2 - adds &wait onto queue q
3 checks if condition is true, if so, if not, enter a while loop
4 prepare_to_wait which changes the status of our &wait to
TASK_INTERUPPABLE
5 check for signals ... notice the process is still moving. Does it
stop and wait now?
6 schedule itself on the runtime rbtree... which make NO sense unless
there was a stopage I didn't know about.
7 check the condition again and repeat while look
7a. if the loop ends fishish_waiting... take it off the queue.
Isn't this reckless to leave this to users to write the code. Your
begging for a race condition.
Ruben
next reply other threads:[~2015-04-19 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-19 10:20 Ruben Safir [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-04-20 1:23 wait queues Ruben Safir
2015-04-20 1:48 ` Ruben Safir
2015-04-20 1:54 ` Fred Chou
2015-04-20 8:57 ` Ruben Safir
2015-04-20 15:23 ` michi1 at michaelblizek.twilightparadox.com
2015-04-20 16:39 ` Ruben Safir
2015-04-21 15:05 ` michi1 at michaelblizek.twilightparadox.com
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=55338150.9030007@mrbrklyn.com \
--to=ruben@mrbrklyn.com \
--cc=kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).