[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160902120626.GB26495@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:06:26 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/wait: avoid abort_exclusive_wait() in
__wait_on_bit_lock()
On 09/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > ret = 0;
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, mode);
> >
> > if (test_bit(&q->key.bit_nr, &q->key.flag))
> > ret = action(&q->key, mode);
> >
> > if (!test_and_set_bit(&q->key.bit_nr, &q->key.flag)) {
> > /* we got the lock anyway, ignore the signal */
> > ret = 0;
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > if (ret)
> > break;
> > }
> > finish_wait(wq, &q->wait);
> >
> > return ret;
> >
> >
> > Would not that work too?
>
> Nope, because we need to do that finish_wait() before
> test_and_set_bit()..
Yes, I meant
int __sched
__wait_on_bit_lock(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct wait_bit_queue *q,
wait_bit_action_f *action, unsigned mode)
{
int ret = 0;
for (;;) {
prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wq, &q->wait, mode);
if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags))
ret = action(&q->key, mode);
finish_wait(wq, &q->wait);
if (!test_and_set_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags))
return 0;
else if (ret)
return ret;
}
}
> Also the problem with doing finish_wait() unconditionally would be
> destroying the FIFO order. With a bit of bad luck you'd get starvation
> cases :/
OK, I didn't think about that, thanks.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists