From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipc/sem.c: move wake_up_process out of the spinlock section
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 14:21:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100511142149.83bb3538.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1272481588-1941-3-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:06:27 +0200
Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:
> The wake-up part of semtimedop() consists out of two steps:
> - the right tasks must be identified.
> - they must be woken up.
>
> Right now, both steps run while the array spinlock is held.
> This patch reorders the code and moves the actual wake_up_process()
> behind the point where the spinlock is dropped.
>
> The code also moves setting sem->sem_otime to one place: It does not
> make sense to set the last modify time multiple times.
ipc/sem.c: In function 'update_queue':
ipc/sem.c:545: warning: 'retval' may be used uninitialized in this function
which indeed was a bug.
--- a/ipc/sem.c~ipc-semc-move-wake_up_process-out-of-the-spinlock-section-fix-2
+++ a/ipc/sem.c
@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static int update_queue(struct sem_array
struct list_head *walk;
struct list_head *pending_list;
int offset;
- int retval;
+ int retval = 0;
/* if there are complex operations around, then knowing the semaphore
* that was modified doesn't help us. Assume that multiple semaphores
_
But I worry that the patch which you sent might not have been the one
which you tested.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-11 21:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-28 19:06 [PATCH 0/3] ipc/sem.c: Optimization for reducing spinlock contention Manfred Spraul
2010-04-28 19:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] ipc/sem.c: Optimize update_queue() for bulk wakeup calls Manfred Spraul
2010-04-28 19:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] ipc/sem.c: move wake_up_process out of the spinlock section Manfred Spraul
2010-04-28 19:06 ` [PATCH 3/3] [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: cacheline align the ipc spinlock for semaphores Manfred Spraul
2010-05-11 21:21 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-05-12 17:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] ipc/sem.c: move wake_up_process out of the spinlock section Manfred Spraul
2010-05-12 18:18 ` Manfred Spraul
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=20100511142149.83bb3538.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=zach.brown@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