[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250307112619.GA5963@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:26:20 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
"Sapkal, Swapnil" <swapnil.sapkal@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pipe_read: don't wake up the writer if the pipe is still
full
On 03/07, Hillf Danton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:30:21 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but in this case pipe_full() == true is correct, this writer can
> > > > safely sleep.
> > > >
> > > No, because no reader is woken up before sleep to make pipe not full.
> >
> > Why the reader should be woken before this writer sleeps? Why the reader
> > should be woken at all in this case (when pipe is full again) ?
> >
> "to make pipe not full" failed to prevent you asking questions like this one.
Hmm. I don't understand your "prevent you asking questions" reply.
If the pipe was full we do not need to wake the reader(s), the reader
can only sleep if pipe_empty() == true.
> > We certainly can't understand each other.
Yes.
> step-00
> pipe->head = 36
> pipe->tail = 36
> after 3d252160b818
>
> step-01
> task-118762 writer
> pipe->head++;
> wakes up task-118740 and task-118768
>
> step-02
> task-118768 writer
> makes pipe full;
> sleeps without waking up any reader as
> pipe was not empty after step-01
>
> step-03
> task-118766 new reader
> makes pipe empty
> sleeps
but since the pipe was full, this reader should wake up the
writer task-118768 once it updates the tail the 1st time during
the read.
> step-04
> task-118740 reader
> sleeps as pipe is empty
this is fine.
> [ Tasks 118740 and 118768 can then indefinitely wait on each other. ]
118768 should be woken at step 3 ?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists