From: Martin Wirth <martin.wirth@epost.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:14:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C58622D.6B0265ED@epost.de> (raw)
Hi,
This is just a general idea I had a few month ago and might be of some
value
for the replacement of BKL or longheld spinlocks in the future 2.5
developement.
While writing some device driver for a real-time data acquisition I had
a
similar problem. I had to protect some driver data structure that is
heavily accessed from multiple processes for merely reading a few
variables
consistently. But from time to time there are bigger tasks to be done,
where
holding a spinlock is not appropriate.
So I used a combination of a spinlock and a semaphore. You can lock this
combilock for short-term issues in a spin-lock mode:
combi_spin_lock(struct combilock *x)
combi_spin_unlock(struct combilock *x)
and for longer lasting tasks in a semaphore mode by:
combi_mutex_lock(struct combilock *x)
combi_mutex_unlock(struct combilock *x)
If a spin-lock request is blocked by a mutex-lock, the spin-lock
attempt also sleeps i.e. behaves like a semaphore.
This approach is less automatic than a first_spin_then_sleep mutex,
but normally the programmer knows better if he is going to do quick
things, or
maybe maybe unbounded stuff.
Note: For a preemtible kernel this approach could lead to much less
scheduling ping-pong also for UP if a spinlock is replaced by a
combilock
instead of a semaphore.
The code is quite simple and borrowed a bit from the completion handler
stuff
in sched.c. (Of course the owner could be a simple flag, but I had some
later
extension to a priority inheritance scheme in mind).
struct combilock {
wait_queue_head_t wait;
task_t *owner;
};
void combi_spin_lock(struct combilock *x)
{
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
if (x->owner) {
DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
wait.flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
__add_wait_queue_tail(&x->wait, &wait);
do {
__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
schedule();
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
} while (x->owner);
__remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
}
}
void combi_spin_unlock(struct combilock *x)
{
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
}
void combi_mutex_lock(struct combilock *x)
{
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
if (x->owner) {
DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
wait.flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
__add_wait_queue_tail(&x->wait, &wait);
do {
__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
schedule();
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
} while (x->owner);
__remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
} else
x->owner=current;
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
}
void combi_mutex_unlock(struct combilock *x)
{
spin_lock(&x->wait.lock);
x->owner=NULL;
__wake_up_common(&x->wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
1, 0);
spin_unlock(&x->wait.lock);
}
Martin Wirth
next reply other threads:[~2002-01-30 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-30 21:14 Martin Wirth [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-02-01 19:29 [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek John Hawkes
2002-01-31 15:39 Martin Wirth
2002-01-31 21:06 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-01-30 0:00 Robert Love
2002-01-30 0:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-30 0:41 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 0:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-30 2:24 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 1:26 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-30 2:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-30 2:20 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 2:20 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-30 2:21 ` Dave Jones
2002-01-30 2:37 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 2:50 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-01-30 3:19 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-30 9:34 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-01-30 10:36 ` Russell King
2002-01-30 4:54 ` Alexander Viro
2002-01-30 8:00 ` Trond Myklebust
2002-01-30 13:39 ` Robert Love
2002-01-30 4:50 ` Anton Blanchard
2002-01-30 5:03 ` Robert Love
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=3C58622D.6B0265ED@epost.de \
--to=martin.wirth@epost.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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