[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161026154647.GJ3157@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:46:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
computersforpeace@...il.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
der.herr@...r.at
Subject: Re: complete_all and "forever" completions
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:42:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Does something like so work?
try_wait_for_completion() would need a similar change.
> ---
> kernel/sched/completion.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/completion.c b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> index 8d0f35debf35..5deab9c789df 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/completion.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ void complete_all(struct completion *x)
> unsigned long flags;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> - x->done += UINT_MAX/2;
> + x->done = UINT_MAX/2;
> __wake_up_locked(&x->wait, TASK_NORMAL, 0);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> }
> @@ -79,7 +79,10 @@ do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x,
> if (!x->done)
> return timeout;
> }
> - x->done--;
> +
> + if (x->done != UINT_MAX/2)
> + x->done--;
> +
> return timeout ?: 1;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists