[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080620143220.GA441@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:32:20 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Eli Cohen <eli@....mellanox.co.il>,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious failure under heavy load?
On 06/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/20, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -4405,6 +4405,16 @@ do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x, long timeout, int state)
> > spin_unlock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
> > timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> > spin_lock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the completion has arrived meanwhile
> > + * then return 1 jiffy time left:
> > + */
> > + if (x->done && !timeout) {
> > + timeout = 1;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (!timeout) {
> > __remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
> > return timeout;
>
> This is the real nitpick, but I wonder what is the right behaviour
> of wait_for_completion_timeout(x, 0) when x->done != 0. Perhaps we
> can return 1 in that case too, just for the consistency?
>
> IOW, how about the patch below? this also makes the code a bit
> simpler because we factor out __remove_wait_queue().
Even better, we can kill the first __remove_wait_queue() as well.
Oleg.
--- kernel/sched.c
+++ kernel/sched.c
@@ -4739,22 +4739,20 @@ do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x,
signal_pending(current)) ||
(state == TASK_KILLABLE &&
fatal_signal_pending(current))) {
- __remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
- return -ERESTARTSYS;
+ timeout = -ERESTARTSYS;
+ break;
}
__set_current_state(state);
spin_unlock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
spin_lock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
- if (!timeout) {
- __remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
- return timeout;
- }
- } while (!x->done);
+ } while (!x->done && timeout);
__remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
+ if (!x->done)
+ return timeout;
}
x->done--;
- return timeout;
+ return timeout ?: 1;
}
static long __sched
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists