From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/8] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:17:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <561B7A9A.3020904@bmw-carit.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150909142608.GP12596@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 09/09/2015 04:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:05:29PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> @@ -50,10 +50,10 @@ void complete_all(struct completion *x)
>> {
>> unsigned long flags;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
>> x->done += UINT_MAX/2;
>> - __wake_up_locked(&x->wait, TASK_NORMAL, 0);
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
>> + swake_up_locked(&x->wait);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(complete_all);
>
> I don't think that's correct; __wake_up_locked(.nr=0) would wake all
> waiters, where swake_up_locked() will only wake one.
I read that x->done should be protected via wait.lock during the whole
operation. swake_up_all() will release and reacquire the lock while
processing the all waiters. So we need to get
Could we play a trick like setting the highest bit in done for
indicating the complete_all() operation. The UINT_MAX/2 update looks
like do this by setting a value which has the biggest offset from 0 (but
why adding instead of just going for assigning...).
cheers,
daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-12 9:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-09 12:05 [PATCH v0 0/8] Simple wait queue support Daniel Wagner
2015-09-09 12:05 ` [PATCH v1 1/8] wait.[ch]: Introduce the simple waitqueue (swait) implementation Daniel Wagner
2015-09-09 12:05 ` [PATCH v1 2/8] KVM: use simple waitqueue for vcpu->wq Daniel Wagner
2015-09-09 12:05 ` [PATCH v1 3/8] sched/completion: convert completions to use simple wait queues Daniel Wagner
2015-09-09 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-12 9:17 ` Daniel Wagner [this message]
2015-10-12 10:03 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-10-12 11:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-12 12:44 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-09-09 12:05 ` [PATCH v1 4/8] rcu: use simple wait queues where possible in rcutree Daniel Wagner
2015-09-09 12:05 ` [PATCH v1 5/8] rcu: Do not call swake_up_all with rnp->lock holding Daniel Wagner
2015-09-09 12:05 ` [PATCH v1 6/8] gadgetfs: Fix fallout of wait to swait completion change Daniel Wagner
2015-09-09 12:05 ` [PATCH v1 7/8] usb: gadget: f_fs: " Daniel Wagner
2015-09-09 12:05 ` [PATCH v1 8/8] orinoco_usb: " Daniel Wagner
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=561B7A9A.3020904@bmw-carit.de \
--to=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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