[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CC69E8F.20003@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:25:35 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about synchronize_sched_expedited()
Hello, Paul.
On 10/25/2010 09:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> I think your concern is valid and this can happen w/o preemption given
>> enough cpus and perfect timing. Was the original code free from this
>> problem?
>
> I believe so -- there was a mutex guarding the whole operation, including
> the increment.
I see.
>> IMHO the counter based mechanism is a bit too difficult to ponder and
>> verify. Can we do more conventional double queueing (ie. flipping
>> pending and executing queues so that multiple sync calls can get
>> coalesced while another one is in progress)? That's what the code is
>> trying to achieve anyway, right?
>
> Hmmm... But it would be necessary to flip the queues somewhere, and
> wouldn't determining where that somewhere was involve the same analysis
> and complexity as determining where to increment the counter?
I was thinking something like the following.
lock;
if (list_empty(running))
add myself to running
unlock;
else
remember list_empty(pending)
append myself to pending queue;
unlock and sleep;
if (pending wasn't empty)
return;
do it;
lock;
wake up all on running and clear it;
list_splice_init(pending, running);
wake up the first of running;
unlock;
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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