[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141002191846.GB30606@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 21:18:46 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Jet Chen <jet.chen@...el.com>, Su Tao <tao.su@...el.com>,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Subject: Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at
kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()
Ah, somehow I missed this email, I already replied to the previous one.
On 10/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> In any case, if we change wait_woken() like the below, then we can
> simplify the loops by taking out their signal_pending checks and using
> the wait_woken() return value instead.
Yes, but let me repeat,
> +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> @@ -326,8 +326,14 @@ long wait_woken(wait_queue_t *wait, unsi
> * woken_wake_function() such that if we observe WQ_FLAG_WOKEN we must
> * also observe all state before the wakeup.
> */
> - if (!(wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN))
> - timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> + if (!(wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN)) {
> + if (___wait_is_interruptible(mode)) {
___wait_is_interruptible() is pointless, signal_pending_state() does
the same checks. Not to mention it will always return T in this case,
note that __builtin_constant_p(state) == F.
> + if (signal_pending_state(mode, current))
> + timeout = -ERESTARTSYS;
OK, but unless I missed something this looks overcomplicated. You can
simply do this at the start of wait_woken(). Not need to play with
current->state, no need to clear WQ_FLAG_WOKEN.
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