From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.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>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] introduce wait_event_common()
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 22:02:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130606200257.GA23628@redhat.com> (raw)
Hello.
To remind, I think that 4c663cfc "wait: fix false timeouts when using
wait_event_timeout()" is not enough, wait(wq, true, 0) still returns
zero.
But to me the main problem is that wait_event* macros duplicate the
same code again and again. Imho it would be nice to create a single
helper. To simplify the review, this is the code after 1/2:
#define __wait_no_timeout(tout) \
(__builtin_constant_p(tout) && (tout) == MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT)
/* uglified signal_pending_state() optimized for constant state */
#define __wait_signal_pending(state) \
((state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) ? signal_pending(current) : \
(state == TASK_KILLABLE) ? fatal_signal_pending(current) : \
0)
#define __wait_event_common(wq, condition, state, tout) \
({ \
DEFINE_WAIT(__wait); \
long __ret = 0, __tout = tout; \
\
for (;;) { \
prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, state); \
if (condition) { \
__ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout) ?: __tout ?: 1; \
break; \
} \
\
if (__wait_signal_pending(state)) { \
__ret = -ERESTARTSYS; \
break; \
} \
\
if (__wait_no_timeout(tout)) \
schedule(); \
else if (__tout) \
__tout = schedule_timeout(__tout); \
else \
break; \
} \
finish_wait(&wq, &__wait); \
__ret; \
})
#define wait_event_common(wq, condition, state, tout) \
({ \
long __ret; \
if (condition) \
__ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout) ?: (tout) ?: 1; \
else \
__ret = __wait_event_common(wq, condition, state, tout);\
__ret; \
})
2/2 doesn't look like a cleanup. But personally I think that it makes
sense to shrink .text,
- 4977769 2930984 10104832 18013585 112dd91 vmlinux
+ 4976847 2930984 10104832 18012663 112d9f7 vmlinux
on my build.
Please comment.
Oleg.
next reply other threads:[~2013-06-06 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-06 20:02 Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-06-06 20:03 ` [PATCH 1/2] wait: introduce wait_event_common(wq, condition, state, timeout) Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-18 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2013-06-19 16:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-06 20:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] wait: introduce prepare_to_wait_event() Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-06 21:36 ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-07 13:07 ` 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=20130606200257.GA23628@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=tj@kernel.org \
--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