[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160511090442.GH16677@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:04:42 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for
down_write_killable
On Wed 11-05-16 10:44:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> @@ -504,6 +502,18 @@ __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>
> return ret;
> +
> +out_nolock:
> + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> + list_del(&waiter.list);
> + if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
> + rwsem_atomic_update(-RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, sem);
> + else
> + __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READERS);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> +
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
> }
Looks much better but don't we have to check the count for potentially
pending writers?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists