[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170822185624.GN32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:56:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:19:12AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index a49702445ce0..75c29a1f90fb 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -991,13 +991,11 @@ static inline int wait_on_page_bit_common(wait_queue_head_t *q,
> }
> }
>
> - if (lock) {
> - if (!test_and_set_bit_lock(bit_nr, &page->flags))
> - break;
> - } else {
> - if (!test_bit(bit_nr, &page->flags))
> - break;
> - }
> + if (!lock)
> + break;
> +
> + if (!test_and_set_bit_lock(bit_nr, &page->flags))
> + break;
> }
Won't we now prematurely terminate the wait when we get a spurious
wakeup?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists