[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150106114215.GS29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 12:42:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
Cc: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc3
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 03:07:30AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > No, the root cause is nesting sleep primitives, this is not fixable in
> > the one place, both prepare_to_wait and mutex_lock are using
> > task_struct::state, they have to, no way around it.
>
> No, it's completely possible to construct a prepare_to_wait() that doesn't
> require messing with the task state. Had it for years.
>
> http://evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git/log/?h=aio_ring_fix
Your closures are cute but not the same. And sure you can do a wait
queue like interface -- my wait_woken thing is an example -- that
doesn't require task state.
The point remains that you then have to fix every instance to conform to
the new interface.
--
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