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 11:46 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:04:18PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> +void swake_add_all_wq(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct wake_q_head *wq)
>> {
>> struct swait_queue *curr;
>>
>> while (!list_empty(&q->task_list)) {
>>
>> curr = list_first_entry(&q->task_list, typeof(*curr),
>> task_list);
>> list_del_init(&curr->task_list);
>> + wake_q_add(wq, curr->task);
>> }
>> }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_add_all_wq);
>>
>> 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)
>> {
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wq);
>>
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
>> + swake_add_all_wq(q, &wq);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
>>
>> + wake_up_q(&wq);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_up_all);
> This is fundamentally wrong. The whole point of wake_up_all() is that
> _all_ is unbounded and should not ever land in a single critical
> section, be it IRQ or PREEMPT disabled. The above does both.

It seems to me to be better than what was there, certainly more efficient.

And if I understand this correctly it is unbounded when !RT, but it is
bounded
on RT.

And I'm biased, because it should fix my problem :).

> Yes, wake_up_all() is crap, it is also fundamentally incompatible with
> in-*irq usage. Nothing to be done about that.
>
> So NAK on this.

So what would you suggest?  At this point getting rid of all the users of
wake_up_all() from interrupt context is not really an option, though as
an eventual goal it would be good.

-corey

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-09 23:03    [W:0.110 / U:0.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site