[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090624152143.GB23848@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:21:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ratan Nalumasu <rnalumasu@...il.com>,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up_parent() to use filtered
wakeup
On 06/24, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> Looks good, I'm glad to see this revived.
>
> I note that even simpler than eligible_child() is just:
I think the check below is orthogonal to eligible_child(). Not sure
eligible_child() can really help, but otoh it is cheap and doesn't hurt.
But perhaps we can kill it later.
> if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && wo->child_wait.private != p->parent)
> return 0;
>
> IIRC that is the test that Ratan's original patch used to address the
> particular application usage that first troubled him.
Aha, now I see what was the problem with Ratan's workload.
> But probably this
> is already what you meant by "more clever later"
I didn't mean this particular optimization, but it looks good to me.
> (and ->parent is perhaps
> not right in all cases there).
I think this is right... Except I'd like to avoid using ->parent.
> Your two patches as they are look safe and useful to me and I hope they can
> go in soon.
Thanks.
Yes I think these 2 patches should be applied first, even if eligible_child()
itself doesn't buy much. It will be cleaner if we add "real" checks on top.
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