From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
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 v6] wait: prevent exclusive waiter starvation
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:31:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090127223116.GA21484@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090127200544.GA28843@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:05:44PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/27, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >
> > +void abort_exclusive_wait(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> > + if (list_empty(&wait->task_list))
>
> Hmm... it should be !list_empty() ?
Yes.
>
> > + list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
> > + /*
> > + * If we were woken through the waitqueue (waker removed
> > + * us from the list) we must ensure the next waiter down
> > + * the line is woken up. The callsite will not do it as
> > + * it didn't finish waiting successfully.
> > + */
> > + else if (waitqueue_active(q))
> > + __wake_up_locked(q, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> > +}
>
> Well, personally I don't care, but this is against CodingStyle rules ;)
I removed it from there and added a note to the kerneldoc.
> > int autoremove_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> > {
> > int ret = default_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
> > @@ -177,17 +218,19 @@ 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 {
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, mode);
> > - if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags)) {
> > - if ((ret = (*action)(q->key.flags)))
> > - break;
> > - }
> > + if (!test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags))
> > + continue;
> > + if (!(ret = action(q->key.flags)))
> > + continue;
> > + abort_exclusive_wait(wq, &q->wait);
>
> No, no. We should use the same key in abort_exclusive_wait().
> Otherwise, how can we wakeup the next waiter which needs this
> bit in the same page->flags?
>
> That is why I suggested finish_wait_exclusive(..., void *key)
> which should we passed to __wake_up_common().
Okay, I am obviously wasting our time now. And I definitely stared so
long at the same three lines that I send randomly broken patches, so
v7 coming after some delay including sleep.
Thanks for your patience,
hannes
--
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:[~2009-01-27 22:33 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
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 [this message]
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=20090127223116.GA21484@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cel@citi.umich.edu \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
/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).