[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:19:05 -0500
From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] wait-simple: Introduce the simple waitqueue implementation
On 13-12-12 06:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:18:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 08:06:37PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
[...]
>>> +
>>> +unsigned int
>>> +__swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *head, unsigned int state, unsigned int num)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> + int woken;
>>> +
>>> + if (!swaitqueue_active(head))
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&head->lock, flags);
>>> + woken = __swake_up_locked(head, state, num);
>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&head->lock, flags);
>>> + return woken;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__swake_up);
>>
>> Urgh, fail. Do not put unbounded loops in raw_spin_lock.
>>
>> I think I posted a patch a while back to cure this.
>
> tada!
>
> lkml.kernel.org/r/20131004145625.GN3081@...ns.programming.kicks-ass.net
Yep, I linked to that at the bottom of the 0/3 -- I was still
hoping we could find a way to somehow do that w/o passing
the flags around between functions... perhaps it isn't possible...
--
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