[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170629174046.GC3954@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:40:46 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, mfuzzey@...keon.com,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
jewalt@...innovations.com, rafal@...ecki.pl,
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Li, Yi" <yi1.li@...ux.intel.com>, atull@...nel.org,
Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
"Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable # 4 . 6" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] swait: add the missing killable swaits
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>Well, I'd actually say it the other way around: swait should not be
>used in general, only in _very_ particular pieces of code that
>actually explicitly need the odd swait semantics.
>
>swait uses special locking and has odd semantics that are not at all
>the same as the default wait queue ones. It should not be used without
>very strong reasons (and honestly, the only strong enough reason seems
>to be "RT").
>
>The special locking means that swait doesn't do DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC, but
>it also means that it doesn't even work in all contexts.
>
>So "swake_up()" does surprising things (only wake up one - that's what
>caused a firmware loading bug), and "swake_up_all()" has magic rules
>about interrupt disabling.
>
>The thing is simply a collection of small hacks and should NOT be used
>in general.
For all the above, what do you think of my 'sswait' proposal?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists