[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150420144235.GX27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:42:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
fredrik.markstrom@...driver.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: lockless wake-queues
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:17:39PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> +void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + struct wake_q_node *node = &task->wake_q;
> +
> + /*
> + * Atomically grab the task, if ->wake_q is !nil already it means
> + * its already queued (either by us or someone else) and will get the
> + * wakeup due to that.
> + *
> + * This cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, which pairs with the write
> + * barrier implied by the wakeup in wake_up_list().
> + */
> + if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
> + return;
> +
> + get_task_struct(task);
> +
> + /*
> + * The head is context local, there can be no concurrency.
> + */
> + if (head->first == WAKE_Q_TAIL)
> + head->first = node;
> + else
> + head->last->next = node;
> +
> + head->last = node;
> +}
Do we want a sched_feat() that makes the above to an immediate wake-up
instead of the fancy thing? -- just for debuging/performance
measurements like things?
--
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