[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140319171906.GA11377@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:19:06 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Peng Tao <bergwolf@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: introduce add_wait_queue_exclusive_head
On 03/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 05:49:07PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > +static void add_wait_queue_flag(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
> > +{
> > + struct list_head *head = &q->task_list;
> > + wait_queue_t *excl;
> > +
> > + if (wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE) {
> > + if (wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE_HEAD) {
> > + list_for_each_entry(excl, head, task_list)
> > + if (excl->flags & WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE) {
> > + head = &excl->task_list;
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> I prefer an extra pair of { } here,
OK,
> but the main concern would be the
> cost of that iteration.
Yes.
This change assumes that we do not mix exclusive and !exclusive, in
this case list_for_each_entry() is cheap, the list is either empty
or the first entry is WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE.
Otherwise the user should blame itself, but the code still will work
correctly.
Or we can do
if (WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE_HEAD) {
WARN_ON(!list_empty(head) &&
(list_first_entry(...)-flags & WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE));
...
}
> Other than that, yes something like that would do I suppose.
OK, I'll try to test/cleanup/resend tomorrow.
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