Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 2/2] Freezer: Use wait queue instead of busy looping

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

On Tue 2007-07-31 12:08:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 July 2007 11:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tuesday, 31 July 2007 10:01, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > > > > refrigerator_called is only reset after try_to_freeze_tasks() has found it
> > > > > > equal to one.  There is only a small window between checking it in
> > > > > > wait_event_timeout() and resetting it,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > but then we go to send freeze requests
> > > > > > to the remaining tasks and we count 'todo' from the start, so that shouldn't
> > > > > > be a problem.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ... and we find the task which is not frozen() yet, but which has already passed
> > > > > the "set condition and wakeup", increment todo, and wait for the event. If it was
> > > > > the last task, we will sleep until timeout.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I agree, this is not fatal and unlikely, but still it is a race. I think it is
> > > > > better to move this code down, after frozen_process().
> > > > 
> > > > OK, I see your point.  The updated patch is appended.
> > > > 
> > > > > (offtopic: strictly speaking, we don't even need the "refrigerator_called", we
> > > > >  only need the wait_queue_head_t. try_to_freeze_tasks() just adds the "current"
> > > > >  to wq at the very start of the main loop).
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, yes, I think so.
> > > 
> > > Ok, could we just do schedule_timeout(HZ/10) or something, but when we
> > > _know_ we woke someone, wakeup() that task? No new variables, keep
> > > existing logic.
> > 
> > The logic doesn't change that much. :-)
> > 
> > > That should still get most of the benefits, and be two liner, no?
> > 
> > Well, I think we can avoid using refrigerator_called, if this is a problem, but
> > the patch won't be a two liner.
> 
> To be precise, we'd need to add current to the wait queue manually, which
> would require us to open code wait_event_timeout(), more or less.
> 
> Still, maybe to many things are done in this patch at a time.  I'll try to
> split it into smaller steps. :-)

Ok, whatever.

Hmm, you could be sneaky and send signals to refrigerator, that should
trigger early return from schedule_timeout()... <runs away, hides>
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html