From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, dhowells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (Was: lockdep trace from posix timers)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:01:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120906180100.GA9479@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120826191132.GA3743@redhat.com>
Ping...
Al, will you agree with these changes?
Peter, do you think you can do your make-it-lockless patch (hehe, I
think this is not possible ;) on top?
On 08/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Peter, if you think it can work for you and if you agree with
> > the implementation I will be happy to send the patch.
>
> I think I should try anyway ;)
>
> To simplify the review, I attached the resulting code below.
>
> Changes:
>
> - Comments.
>
> - Not sure this is really better, but task_work_run()
> does not need to actually take pi_lock, unlock_wait
> is enough.
>
> However, in this case the dummy entry is better than
> the fake pointer.
>
> Oleg.
>
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> #include <linux/task_work.h>
> #include <linux/tracehook.h>
>
> static struct callback_head work_exited; /* all we need is ->next == NULL */
>
> int
> task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work, bool notify)
> {
> struct callback_head *head;
>
> do {
> head = ACCESS_ONCE(task->task_works);
> if (unlikely(head == &work_exited))
> return -ESRCH;
> work->next = head;
> } while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, head, work) != head);
>
> if (notify)
> set_notify_resume(task);
> return 0;
> }
>
> struct callback_head *
> task_work_cancel(struct task_struct *task, task_work_func_t func)
> {
> struct callback_head **pprev = &task->task_works;
> struct callback_head *work = NULL;
> unsigned long flags;
> /*
> * If cmpxchg() fails we continue without updating pprev.
> * Either we raced with task_work_add() which added the
> * new entry before this work, we will find it again. Or
> * we raced with task_work_run(), *pprev == NULL/exited.
> */
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> while ((work = ACCESS_ONCE(*pprev))) {
> read_barrier_depends();
> if (work->func != func)
> pprev = &work->next;
> else if (cmpxchg(pprev, work, work->next) == work)
> break;
> }
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
>
> return work;
> }
>
> void task_work_run(void)
> {
> struct task_struct *task = current;
> struct callback_head *work, *head, *next;
>
> for (;;) {
> /*
> * work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
> * work_exited unless the list is empty.
> */
> do {
> work = ACCESS_ONCE(task->task_works);
> head = !work && (task->flags & PF_EXITING) ?
> &work_exited : NULL;
> } while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, work, head) != work);
>
> if (!work)
> break;
> /*
> * Synchronize with task_work_cancel(). It can't remove
> * the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) should
> * fail, but it can play with *work and other entries.
> */
> raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);
> smp_mb();
>
> /* Reverse the list to run the works in fifo order */
> head = NULL;
> do {
> next = work->next;
> work->next = head;
> head = work;
> work = next;
> } while (work);
>
> work = head;
> do {
> next = work->next;
> work->func(work);
> work = next;
> cond_resched();
> } while (work);
> }
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-06 17:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-24 20:36 lockdep trace from posix timers Dave Jones
2012-07-27 16:20 ` Dave Jones
2012-08-16 12:54 ` Ming Lei
2012-08-16 14:03 ` Dave Jones
2012-08-16 18:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-17 15:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-17 15:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-17 16:40 ` task_work_add() should not succeed unconditionally (Was: lockdep trace from posix timers) Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 7:15 ` lockdep trace from posix timers Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 11:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 11:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 12:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-08-20 12:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 14:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 16:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:41 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 16:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 16:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 16:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-21 18:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-21 18:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-24 18:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:11 ` [PATCH 0/4] (Was: lockdep trace from posix timers) Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 1/4] task_work: make task_work_add() lockless Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-14 6:08 ` [tip:core/urgent] task_work: Make " tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-24 19:27 ` [PATCH 1/4] task_work: make " Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-09-24 20:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 2/4] task_work: task_work_add() should not succeed after exit_task_work() Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-14 6:09 ` [tip:core/urgent] " tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 3/4] task_work: revert d35abdb2 "hold task_lock around checks in keyctl" Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-14 6:10 ` [tip:core/urgent] task_work: Revert " hold " tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 4/4] task_work: simplify the usage in ptrace_notify() and get_signal_to_deliver() Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-14 6:11 ` [tip:core/urgent] task_work: Simplify " tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov
2012-09-06 18:01 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-09-06 18:35 ` [PATCH 0/4] (Was: lockdep trace from posix timers) Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-07 13:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-28 16:29 ` lockdep trace from posix timers Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-28 17:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-28 17:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-28 17:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-29 15:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-08-20 15:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-20 15:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20120906180100.GA9479@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).