[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120516194332.GN22985@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:43:32 -0400
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
To: chetan loke <loke.chetan@...il.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: SCSI RAM driver ported to 3.3 kernel for file system and I/O
testing
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:37:56PM -0400, chetan loke wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:31:55PM -0400, chetan loke wrote:
> >> > + if (list_empty(&ram_device->commands))
> >> > + wake_up_process(ram_device->thread);
> >>
> >> Didn't look in detail but if the queue is empty then why would you
> >> want to wake up the kthread? What if you just wake_up after
> >> list_add_tail below?
> >
> > If the list is non-empty, then the kthread has already been woken up
> > and doesn't need to be woken again.
>
> Sorry, not able to follow. wait_even_interruptible will put kthread to
> sleep. So how will it be already awake?
Consider the following:
CPU 0 CPU 1
->queuecommand
lock
wakes kthread
queues command 1
unlock
->queuecommand
lock
kthread wakes
lock
queues command 2
unlock
dequeues command 1
dequeues command 2
unlock
See? No need to wake the kthread *if there's already something on the
queue*, because you know it was already woken by whoever put the first
command on the queue.
--
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