From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:27:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080412122724.0897d881.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080412141250.GK11962@parisc-linux.org>
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:12:51 -0600 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:09:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:27:54 -0700 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > Looks good to me. Thanks.
> >
> > Yup, most excellent.
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> > btw, down() and friends should have might_sleep() checks in them, shouldn't
> > they? They don't seem to be in there, nor in mainline
> > lib/semaphore-sleepers.c. Confused.
>
> Mmm. Ingo gets annoyed when I add additional checks to semaphores -- he
> wants them to maintain their current semantics and to get better checking
> by migrating more users to mutexes. I've already exposed at least one
> problem (in aacraid) by adding the __must_check to down_interruptible().
>
> As I wrote in one of the comments, we have places in the kernel which
> know that even though they're in a non-sleeping context, there is at
> least one more token left in the semaphore. One place this bit me was
> in start_kernel(). We disable interrupts and then call lock_kernel()
> which calls down(). Since we're in start_kernel(), we know there's
> nothing else running and this is perfectly safe. But a might_sleep()
> would warn bogusly.
urgh, yes, I'd forgotten about that mess.
I suppose that if might_sleep() checking in down() is useful (and surely it
is) we could provide a separate down_im_stupid() (and
lock_kernel_im_stupid()) which omits the check, and call that from the
problematic sites.
> I'd be open to putting a might_sleep() in __down(). We definitely are
> going to sleep at that point, so getting a warning out of it would
> be good.
I think it'd be worth playing with some time, but it's off-topic for this
current work.
> I thought that schedule() would warn itself in that case,
> but I can't see the code that would do that now I check.
schedule() will warn ("scheduling while atomic"), but only if we happened
to hit contention.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-12 19:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20080410143403.c03757e5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
[not found] ` <20080410220816.GY11962@parisc-linux.org>
[not found] ` <20080410151907.91f11c74.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2008-04-11 19:21 ` [DOC PATCH] semaphore documentation Matthew Wilcox
2008-04-11 20:27 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-04-12 5:09 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-12 14:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-04-12 19:27 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-04-15 8:24 ` David Woodhouse
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=20080412122724.0897d881.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=harvey.harrison@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.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