From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] sched: Provide delayed wakeup list
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 16:01:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E886ED5.8060407@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110914133750.739484417@chello.nl>
Hi Peter,
Do you still work on the wake_up_list() patch?
On 09/14/2011 03:30 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> /*
> * wake flags
> */
> @@ -1255,6 +1268,8 @@ struct task_struct {
> unsigned int btrace_seq;
> #endif
>
> + struct wake_list_node wake_list;
> +
> unsigned int policy;
> cpumask_t cpus_allowed;
A global wake_list
>
> @@ -2143,6 +2158,35 @@ extern void wake_up_new_task(struct task
> extern void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p);
> extern void sched_dead(struct task_struct *p);
>
> +static inline void
> +wake_list_add(struct wake_list_head *head, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + struct wake_list_node *n =&p->wake_list;
> +
> + get_task_struct(p);
> + /*
> + * Atomically grab the task, if ->wake_list is !0 already it means
> + * its already queued (either by us or someone else) and will get the
> + * wakeup due to that.
> + *
> + * This cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, which pairs with the write
> + * barrier implied by the wakeup in wake_up_list().
> + */
> + if (cmpxchg(&n->next, 0, n) != 0) {
> + /* It was already queued, drop the extra ref and we're done. */
> + put_task_struct(p);
> + return;
> + }
> +
A task can be only once on the wake_list.
> + /*
> + * The head is context local, there can be no concurrency.
> + */
> + n->next = head->first;
> + head->first = n;
> +}
> +
> +extern void wake_up_list(struct wake_list_head *head, unsigned int state);
> +
> extern void proc_caches_init(void);
> extern void flush_signals(struct task_struct *);
> extern void __flush_signals(struct task_struct *);
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2916,6 +2916,25 @@ int wake_up_state(struct task_struct *p,
> return try_to_wake_up(p, state, 0);
> }
>
> +void wake_up_list(struct wake_list_head *head, unsigned int state)
> +{
> + struct wake_list_node *n = head->first;
> + struct task_struct *p;
> +
> + while (n != WAKE_LIST_TAIL) {
> + p = container_of(n, struct task_struct, wake_list);
> + n = n->next;
> +
> + p->wake_list.next = NULL;
> + /*
> + * wake_up_state() implies a wmb() to pair with the queueing
> + * in wake_list_add() so as not to miss wakeups.
> + */
> + wake_up_state(p, state);
> + put_task_struct(p);
> + }
> +}
And wake_up_list() uses state.
That can't work:
What if one waker wants to wake TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and the other waker
wants to wake TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE|TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE?
--
Manfred
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-02 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-14 13:30 [RFC][PATCH 0/3] delayed wakeup list Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:30 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] sched: Provide " Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 14:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-09-14 14:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 15:35 ` Darren Hart
2011-09-14 15:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 15:49 ` Darren Hart
2011-09-16 7:59 ` Paul Turner
2011-09-16 7:59 ` Paul Turner
2011-09-16 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-10-02 14:01 ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2011-10-03 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:30 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] futex: Reduce hash bucket lock contention Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 15:46 ` Darren Hart
2011-09-14 15:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 16:00 ` Darren Hart
2011-09-14 20:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-16 12:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-17 12:57 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-09-19 7:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-19 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:30 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] ipc/sem: Rework wakeup scheme Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-15 17:29 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-09-15 19:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-15 19:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-15 19:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-17 12:36 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-09-16 12:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-17 12:32 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-09-16 12:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-09-14 13:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] delayed wakeup list Eric Dumazet
2011-09-14 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=4E886ED5.8060407@colorfullife.com \
--to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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