From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@oss.bmw-carit.de>
Cc: <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 1/3] work-simple: Simple work queue implemenation
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 07:45:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54E19226.2070606@bmw-carit.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150213120921.GA5482@linutronix.de>
Hi Sebastian,
On 02/13/2015 01:09 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Daniel Wagner | 2014-07-11 15:26:11 [+0200]:
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/work-simple.c b/kernel/sched/work-simple.c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/work-simple.c
> …
>> +static int swork_kthread(void *arg)
>> +{
>> + struct sworker *sw = arg;
>> + struct swork_event *ev;
>> +
>> + pr_info("swork_kthread enter\n");
>> +
>> + for (;;) {
>> + swait_event_interruptible(sw->wq,
>> + swork_readable(sw));
>> + if (kthread_should_stop())
>> + break;
>> +
>> + raw_spin_lock(&sw->lock);
>
> why not the _irq() suffix?
Indeed. That should be with a _irq suffix.
>> + while (!list_empty(&sw->events)) {
>> + ev = list_first_entry(&sw->events,
>> + struct swork_event, list);
>> + list_del_init(&ev->list);
>> +
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&sw->lock);
>> +
>> + ev->func(ev);
>> + xchg(&ev->flags, 0);
>
> I've been looking at this for a while and this won't work in longterm.
> Why do you bother using xchg if you don't look at the return value?
Forgot to mention in the commit message (sorry about that), that I was
following what I saw in irq_work.c:__irq_work_run(). Looking at it again
(and reading up a lot on this topic) I agree that doesn't make sense.
> Also, you need to clear that flag _before_ invoking ->func() because
> while that function is beeing executed someone might do another
> queue_work() and expects that that work item invoked again. Atleast this
> is how queue_work() behaves and I would want the same here.
You are right. I tried to simplify what I saw in irq_work and only using
a PENDING flag instead of a PENDING and BUSY flag. Obviously, my version
is broken in that regard. I guess the BUSY flag is necessary.
> But don't worry. I fix this up to me needs so there is nothing you need
> to worry about. The remaining part is simple. Thanks.
Thanks a lot!
cheers,
daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-16 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-11 13:26 [RFC v1 0/3] Add simple work framework Daniel Wagner
2014-07-11 13:26 ` [RFC v1 1/3] work-simple: Simple work queue implemenation Daniel Wagner
2015-02-13 12:09 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-02-16 6:45 ` Daniel Wagner [this message]
2014-07-11 13:26 ` [RFC v1 2/3] x86/mce: Defer mce wakeups to threads for PREEMPT_RT Daniel Wagner
2014-07-11 13:26 ` [RFC v1 3/3] thermal: Defer thermal wakups to threads Daniel Wagner
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=54E19226.2070606@bmw-carit.de \
--to=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=daniel.wagner@oss.bmw-carit.de \
--cc=linux-rt-users@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox