[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <41bddbee-948a-987c-eb72-108a465a7082@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:47:35 -0400
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>,
Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com
Cc: wangle6@...wei.com, xiaoqian9@...wei.com, shaolexi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] semaphore: Add might_sleep() to down_*() family
On 8/13/21 1:27 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08 2021 at 23:01, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 8/8/21 10:12 PM, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
>>> Semaphore is sleeping lock. Add might_sleep() to down*() family
>>> (with exception of down_trylock()) to detect atomic context sleep.
>>> @@ -157,6 +160,7 @@ int down_timeout(struct semaphore *sem, long timeout)
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> int result = 0;
>>>
>>> + might_sleep();
>>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
>>> if (likely(sem->count > 0))
>>> sem->count--;
>> I think it is simpler to just put a "might_sleep()" in __down_common()
>> which is the function where sleep can actually happen.
> No. Putting it in __down_common() is wrong, because that covers only the
> contended case.
>
> But we want to cover the potential sleep, i.e. checking even in the
> non-contended case, which is what might_sleep() is about.
You are right. Thanks for the correction.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists