[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200320090106.6p2lwqvs4jedhvds@linux-p48b>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 02:01:06 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [patch V2 11/15] completion: Use simple wait queues
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
>completion uses a wait_queue_head_t to enqueue waiters.
>
>wait_queue_head_t contains a spinlock_t to protect the list of waiters
>which excludes it from being used in truly atomic context on a PREEMPT_RT
>enabled kernel.
>
>The spinlock in the wait queue head cannot be replaced by a raw_spinlock
>because:
>
> - wait queues can have custom wakeup callbacks, which acquire other
> spinlock_t locks and have potentially long execution times
>
> - wake_up() walks an unbounded number of list entries during the wake up
> and may wake an unbounded number of waiters.
>
>For simplicity and performance reasons complete() should be usable on
>PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels.
>
>completions do not use custom wakeup callbacks and are usually single
>waiter, except for a few corner cases.
>
>Replace the wait queue in the completion with a simple wait queue (swait),
>which uses a raw_spinlock_t for protecting the waiter list and therefore is
>safe to use inside truly atomic regions on PREEMPT_RT.
>
>There is no semantical or functional change:
>
> - completions use the exclusive wait mode which is what swait provides
>
> - complete() wakes one exclusive waiter
>
> - complete_all() wakes all waiters while holding the lock which protects
> the wait queue against newly incoming waiters. The conversion to swait
> preserves this behaviour.
>
>complete_all() might cause unbound latencies with a large number of waiters
>being woken at once, but most complete_all() usage sites are either in
>testing or initialization code or have only a really small number of
>concurrent waiters which for now does not cause a latency problem. Keep it
>simple for now.
>
>The fixup of the warning check in the USB gadget driver is just a straight
>forward conversion of the lockless waiter check from one waitqueue type to
>the other.
>
>Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists