[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.2.19pre2
    Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > > o wake_one semantics for accept() (Andrew Morton)
    > I dislike the implementation. I stick with my faster and nicer implementation
    > that was just included in aa kernels for some time (2.2.18aa2 included it for
    > example). Andrew, I guess you didn't noticed I just implemented the wakeone for
    > accept. (I just ported it on top of 2.2.19pre2 after backing out the wakeone in
    > pre2)

    Yes, I noticed your implementation a few weeks back.

    'fraid I never liked the use of the TASK_EXCLUSIVE bit in
    task_struct.state. It's an enumerated state, not an aggregation
    of flags. Most of the kernel treats it as an enumerated state
    and so will happily clear the TASK_EXCLUSIVE bit without masking it
    off. Fragile.

    If a task is on two waitqueues at the same time it becomes a bug:
    if the outer waitqueue is non-exclusive and the inner is exclusive,
    the task suddenly becomes exclusive on the outer one and converts
    it from wake-all to wake-some!

    Is it faster? Not sure. You've saved a cacheline read in __wake_up
    (which was in fact a preload, if you look at what comes later) at the
    cost of having to mask out the bit in current->state every time
    we schedule().

    Anyway, it's academic. davem would prefer that we do it properly
    and move the `exclusive' flag into the waitqueue head to avoid the
    task-on-two-waitqueues problem, as was done in 2.4. I think he's
    right. Do you?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.039 / U:8.180 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site