From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Chuck Lever <cel@citi.umich.edu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:30:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090123133050.GA19226@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090123113541.GB12684@redhat.com>
On 01/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> It is no that I think this new helper is really needed for this
> particular case, personally I agree with the patch you sent.
>
> But if we have other places with the similar problem, then perhaps
> it is better to introduce the special finish_wait_exclusive() or
> whatever.
To clarify, I suggest something like this.
int finish_wait_exclusive(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait,
int ret, int state, void *key)
{
unsigned long flags;
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
if (ret || !list_empty_careful(&wait->task_list)) {
spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
if (list_empty(&wait->task_list))
__wake_up_common(q, state, 1, key);
else
list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
}
return ret;
}
Now, __wait_on_bit_lock() becomes:
int __sched
__wait_on_bit_lock(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct wait_bit_queue *q,
int (*action)(void *), unsigned mode)
{
int ret = 0;
do {
prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, mode);
if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags) &&
(ret = (*action)(q->key.flags))
break;
} while (test_and_set_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags));
return finish_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, ret, mode, &q->key);
}
And __wait_event_interruptible_exclusive:
#define __wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(wq, condition, ret) \
do { \
DEFINE_WAIT(__wait); \
\
for (;;) { \
prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&wq, &__wait, \
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); \
if (condition) \
break; \
if (!signal_pending(current)) { \
schedule(); \
continue; \
} \
ret = -ERESTARTSYS; \
break; \
} \
finish_wait_exclusive(&wq, &__wait, \
ret, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, NULL); \
} while (0)
But I can't convince myself this is what we really want. So I am not
sending the patch. And yes, we have to check ret twice.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-23 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20090117215110.GA3300@redhat.com>
2009-01-18 1:38 ` [PATCH v3] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock Johannes Weiner
2009-01-18 2:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-20 20:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-21 14:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-21 21:38 ` [RFC v4] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-22 20:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 0:26 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 0:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 10:07 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 11:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 12:36 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-23 9:59 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-23 11:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-23 13:30 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-01-26 21:59 ` [RFC v5] wait: prevent exclusive waiter starvation Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 3:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 19:34 ` [RFC v6] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-27 20:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-27 22:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-01-28 9:14 ` [RFC v7] " Johannes Weiner
2009-01-29 4:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29 7:37 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 8:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-01-29 9:11 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 14:34 ` Chris Mason
2009-02-02 15:47 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-23 19:24 ` [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock Johannes Weiner
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=20090123133050.GA19226@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cel@citi.umich.edu \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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).