[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1275294352.2678.102.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:25:52 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 17/17] writeback: lessen sync_supers wakeup count
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 01:44 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > if (supers_dirty)
> > bdi_arm_supers_timer();
> > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > schedule();
> But we cannot do the above, because again the timer might go off
> before we set current state. We'd lose the wakeup and never wake
> up again.
>
> Putting it inside set_current_state() should be OK. I suppose.
Hmm, but it looks like we cannot do that either. If we do
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
if (supers_dirty)
bdi_arm_supers_timer();
schedule();
and the kernel is preemptive, is it possible that we get preempted
before we run 'bdi_arm_supers_timer()', but after we do
'set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)'. And we will never wake up if
the timer armed in mark_sb_dirty() went off.
So it looks like this is the way to go:
/*
* Disable preemption for a while to make sure we are not
* preempted before the timer is armed.
*/
preempt_disable();
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
if (supers_dirty)
bdi_arm_supers_timer();
preempt_enable();
schedule();
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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