From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout()
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:37:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130605163702.GA26135@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1370382051.8432.16.camel@ideak-mobl>
On 06/05, Imre Deak wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 00:35 +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 21:28 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we also change wait_event_timeout() ? Say,
> > >
> > > #define wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \
> > > ({ \
> > > long __ret = timeout; \
> > > if (!(condition)) \
> > > __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, __ret); \
> > > else if (!__ret) \
> > > __ret = 1; \
> > > __ret; \
> > > })
> > >
> > > Or wait_event_timeout(timeout => 0) is not legal in a non-void context?
> > >
> > > To me the code like
> > >
> > > long wait_for_something(bool nonblock)
> > > {
> > > timeout = nonblock ? 0 : DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
> > > return wait_event_timeout(..., timeout);
> > > }
> > >
> > > looks reasonable and correct. But it is not?
> >
> > I don't see why it would be not legal. Note though that in the above
> > form wait_event_timeout(cond, 0) would still schedule() if cond is
> > false, which is not what I'd expect from a non-blocking function.
Yes, if false. But what if it is true?
> Ah sorry, if you also rewrite __wait_event_timeout() then timeout=>0
> wouldn't schedule(), so things would work as expected.
Can't understand... probably you missed my point. Let me try again.
I think that wait_eveint_timeout(wq, COND, 0) should return !!(COND).
But it doesn't, for example wait_event_timeout(wq, true, 0) == 0, this
doesn'tlook right to me.
And, this is off-topic, but wait_eveint_timeout/__wait_eveint_timeout
do not match wait_event/__wait_event. IOW, you can't use
__wait_eveint_timeout() if you do not need the fast-path check.
So. How about
#define __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \
({ \
DEFINE_WAIT(__wait); \
long __ret = 0, __to = timeout; \
\
for (;;) { \
prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); \
if (condition) { \
__ret = __to ?: 1; \
break; \
} \
if (!__to) \
break; \
__to = schedule_timeout(__to); \
} \
finish_wait(&wq, &__wait); \
__ret; \
})
#define wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \
({ \
long __ret; \
if (condition) \
__ret = (timeout) ?: 1; \
else \
__ret = __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout); \
__ret; \
})
?
Othwerwise we should document the fact that the caller should alvays verify
timeout != 0 if it checks the result of wait_event_timeout().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-05 16:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-04 19:28 [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout() Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-04 21:35 ` Imre Deak
2013-06-04 21:40 ` Imre Deak
2013-06-05 16:37 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-06-05 19:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-06 1:45 ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-06 18:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-05-02 8:58 Imre Deak
2013-05-02 9:36 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-07 23:12 ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-08 9:49 ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 10:29 ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:02 ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 12:13 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-02 12:23 ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 12:29 ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:34 ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 12:54 ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 13:56 ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-02 12:29 ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:35 ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 19:56 ` Imre Deak
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=20130605163702.GA26135@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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