[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081204152601.GB8816@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:26:01 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, rnalumasu@...il.com
Subject: Re: + do_wait-wakeup-optimization.patch added to -mm tree
On 11/23, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > > +static int do_wait_wake_function(wait_queue_t *curr, unsigned mode, int sync,
> > > + void *key)
> > > +{
> > > + struct task_struct *task = current;
> >
> > I think we can fix (and simplify) this code if we change __wake_up_parent(),
> > it should call __wake_up(key => p), so we can do
> >
> > struct task_struct *task = key;
>
> I don't see an exposed __wake_up* variant that both passes a "key" pointer
> through and does "sync". For __wake_up_parent, "sync" is quite desireable.
Well, yes... and __wake_up_common() is static. Perhaps we can make a new
helper. I must admit, I don't understand what "sync" actually means nowadays.
> > > + if (!needs_wakeup(task, w))
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + return default_wake_function(curr, mode, sync, key);
> >
> > perhaps autoremove_wake_function() makes more sense.
>
> Why? The do_wait loop will have to go through again and still might just
> sleep again. The explicit remove at the end of do_wait seems fine to me.
Yes, yes, I was wrong. I forgot about "repeat:" in do_wait().
Oleg.
--
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