lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Warning from swake_up_all in 4.14.15-rt13 non-RT
From
Date
On 03/09/2018 05:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-03-08 13:54:17 [-0600], Corey Minyard wrote:
>>> It will work but I don't think pushing this into workqueue/tasklet is a
>>> good idea. You want to wakeup all waiters on waitqueue X (probably one
>>> waiter) and instead there is one one wakeup + ctx-switch which does the
>>> final wakeup.
>> True, but this is an uncommon and already fairly expensive operation being
>> done.  Adding a context switch doesn't seem that bad.
> still no need to make it more expensive if it can be avoided.
>
>>> But now I had an idea: swake_up_all() could iterate over list and
>>> instead performing wakes it would just wake_q_add() the tasks. Drop the
>>> lock and then wake_up_q(). So in case there is wakeup pending and the
>>> task removed itself from the list then the task may observe a spurious
>>> wakeup.
>> That sounds promising, but where does wake_up_q() get called?  No matter
>> what
>> it's an expensive operation and I'm not sure where you would put it in this
>> case.
> Look at this:
>
...
>
> void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q)
> {
> @@ -66,25 +62,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_up);
> */
> void swake_up_all(struct swait_queue_head *q)
> {
> - struct swait_queue *curr;
> - LIST_HEAD(tmp);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wq);
>
> - WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
> - raw_spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
> - list_splice_init(&q->task_list, &tmp);
> - while (!list_empty(&tmp)) {
> - curr = list_first_entry(&tmp, typeof(*curr), task_list);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> + swake_add_all_wq(q, &wq);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
>
> - wake_up_state(curr->task, TASK_NORMAL);
> - list_del_init(&curr->task_list);
> -
> - if (list_empty(&tmp))
> - break;
> -
> - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&q->lock);
> - raw_spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
> - }
> - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&q->lock);
> + wake_up_q(&wq);

From what I can tell, wake_up_q() is unbounded, and you have undone what
the previous code had tried to accomplish.  In the scenario I'm talking
about,
interrupts are still disabled here.  That's why I was asking about where
to put
wake_up_q(), I knew you could put it here, but it didn't seem to me to help
at all.

> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_up_all);
>
>
>> I had another idea.  This is only occurring if RT is not enabled, because
>> with
>> RT all the irq disable things go away and you are generally running in task
>> context.  So why not have a different version of swake_up_all() for non-RT
>> that does work from irqs-off context?
> With the patch above I have puzzle part which would allow to use swait
> based completions upstream. That ifdef would probably not help.

I agree that having a bounded time way to wake up a bunch of threads while
interrupts are disabled would solve a bunch of issues.  I just don't see
how it
can be done without pushing it off to a softirq or workqueue.

-corey

>> -corey
> Sebastian


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-09 14:30    [W:0.131 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site