Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:03:11 -0700 | From | Davidlohr Bueso <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: wake all waiters |
| |
Hi Luis!
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:45:14AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> > diff --git a/include/linux/swait.h b/include/linux/swait.h >> > index 4a4e180d0a35..14fcf23cece4 100644 >> > --- a/include/linux/swait.h >> > +++ b/include/linux/swait.h >> > @@ -29,7 +29,10 @@ >> > * >> > * As a side effect of this; the data structures are slimmer. >> > * >> > - * One would recommend using this wait queue where possible. >> >> So I think this was added due to the smaller footprint and fewer >> cycles that swait has compared to the traditional (bulkier) >> waitqueues. While probably not worth it, I guess we could offer >> super-simple waitqueues (sswait? :-) which do not have the rt caveats >> and uses a regular spinlock. The wakeup_all() call would not drop >> the lock upon every wakeup as we are stripping the waitqueue not >> for determinism, but for overhead. To mitigate this, we might >> also want to use wake_q for reduced hold q->lock hold times. >> >> But I don't think its worth yet another wait interface. >> Alternatively, it crossed my mind we could also have wakeup_all() >> use in the regular waitqueues, but I'd have to audit all the >> current users to make sure we could actually do this. > >But this open-welcoming invite for swait then, should it go?
I have nothing against removing it.
Thanks, Davidlohr
| |