[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150117075744.GM25256@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:57:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch -rt 1/2] KVM: use simple waitqueue for vcpu->wq
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:48:46AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I notice everywhere you have a swait_wake_interruptible() but here. Is
> there a reason why?
>
> IIRC, Peter wants to make swait wakeup usage homogenous. That is, you
> either sleep in an interruptible state, or you don't. You can't mix and
> match it.
>
> Peter is that what you plan?
Yes, this is required for the single wakeup case to be bounded.
If you have both INTERRUPTIBLE and UNINTERRUPTIBLE waiters on a list,
and you were allowed to do INTERRUPTIBLE/UNINTERRUPTIBLE wakeups, the
wakeup would have to do O(n) iteration to find a matching waiter.
Seeing that the entire purpose of simple wait queues was to retain RT
properties, that's entirely retarded ;-)
--
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