[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160322212352.GF6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:23:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] sched: add schedule_timeout_idle()
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 01:56:26PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 22-03-16 13:51:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > If that sounds like a more appropriate plan I won't object. I can simply
> > > change my patch to do __set_current_state and schedule_timeout.
> >
> > I dunno, I just think these wrappers are silly.
>
> Adding out-of-line, exported wrappers for every single task state is
> kind of silly. But it's still a common operation to wait in a certain
> state, so having a single function for that makes sense. Kind of like
> spin_lock_irqsave and friends.
>
> Maybe this would be better?:
>
> static inline long schedule_timeout_state(long timeout, long state)
> {
> __set_current_state(state);
> return schedule_timeout(timeout);
> }
Probably. However, with such semantics the schedule*() name is wrong
too, you cannot use these functions to build actual wait loops etc.
So maybe:
static inline long sleep_in_state(long timeout, long state)
{
__set_current_state(state);
return schedule_timeout(timeout);
}
might be an even better name; but at that point we look very like the
msleep*() class of function, so maybe we should do:
long sleep_in_state(long state, long timeout)
{
while (timeout && !signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
__set_current_state(state);
timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
}
return timeout;
}
Hmm ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists