From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
arjan@linux.intel.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
hch@infradead.org, rminnich@sandia.gov, ericvh@gmail.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #3
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:29:51 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <492A2DBF.3030208@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081123094551.GQ30453@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> And @sync might be useful depending on who's waking it up, so we
>> either need to change the wake interface or give it an easier way to
>> pass those parameters as received. The callback function isn't the
>> right place to ignore those parameters. It simply doesn't know why
>> the caller is passing them in or what they mean under the
>> circumstances.
>
> We'll likely eliminate the 'sync' parameter from the scheduler. It's
> not a flag that should be proliferated.
But it's still being used in quite hot paths (pipe, splice, socket)
and I don't really wanna mix up a change which can cause subtle
scheduling related performance regression into this patch. How about
using the dummy waitqueue hack for now and when removing the @sync
param, switch it to one of wakeup APIs? I'll be happy to add big /*
TODO */ comment in the function.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-24 4:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-22 8:58 [PATCH fwd] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep Miklos Szeredi
2008-11-22 9:27 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-22 12:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-11-22 12:43 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-22 18:53 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-23 1:26 ` poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #3 Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 2:35 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-23 3:05 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 3:34 ` Brad Boyer
2008-11-23 3:48 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 8:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-23 9:14 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 9:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-23 9:43 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-23 9:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-24 4:29 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2008-11-24 4:57 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-24 5:05 ` Davide Libenzi
2008-11-24 6:09 ` [PATCH] poll: allow f_op->poll to sleep, take #4 Tejun Heo
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=492A2DBF.3030208@gmail.com \
--to=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=ericvh@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rminnich@sandia.gov \
--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