Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:26:01 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: + do_wait-wakeup-optimization.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On 11/23, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > > +static int do_wait_wake_function(wait_queue_t *curr, unsigned mode, int sync, > > > + void *key) > > > +{ > > > + struct task_struct *task = current; > > > > I think we can fix (and simplify) this code if we change __wake_up_parent(), > > it should call __wake_up(key => p), so we can do > > > > struct task_struct *task = key; > > I don't see an exposed __wake_up* variant that both passes a "key" pointer > through and does "sync". For __wake_up_parent, "sync" is quite desireable.
Well, yes... and __wake_up_common() is static. Perhaps we can make a new helper. I must admit, I don't understand what "sync" actually means nowadays.
> > > + if (!needs_wakeup(task, w)) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > + return default_wake_function(curr, mode, sync, key); > > > > perhaps autoremove_wake_function() makes more sense. > > Why? The do_wait loop will have to go through again and still might just > sleep again. The explicit remove at the end of do_wait seems fine to me.
Yes, yes, I was wrong. I forgot about "repeat:" in do_wait().
Oleg.
| |