lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Any documentation anywhere on the new wait.h?

Thanks much.

Hans

Ingo Molnar writes:
>
> On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> > The wait_queue stuff has changed, and I find stuff like the field
> > compiler_warning to be cryptic. There are no comments on the
> > datastructures....
> >
> > Anybody know what has changed, and what the basic idea is behind the new
> > stuff in 2.3.8?
>
> there have been four major changes/goals wrt. the waitqueues changes:
>
> 1) waitqueue heads were separated from waitqueue entries, data-structure
> wise. Formerly the head was a pointer, which was not generic enough, see
> later.
>
> 2) the waitqueue list has been changed to be a double-linked never-zero
> ringlist. This has obvious micro-speed and algorithmical scaling benefits,
> formerly remove_from_wait_queue() had to potentially traverse all the
> waitqueue to remove a single entry. Now it's all O(1).
>
> 3) the generic datastructures enabled us to add per-waitqueue spinlocks
> which makes us scale better on SMP. Particularly __wake_up() tends to hold
> the waitqueue lock while doing other stuff (well, waking up processes), so
> this is a definit win. It was also easy and seemless due to the generic
> data structures. The spinlock architecture is atm. 'dual', which means
> that it can be switched between readwrite and 'simple' spinlocks via a
> define. The 'simple' version was benchmarked to perform better, that one
> will probably stick and the rw-version will be removed.
>
> 4) all these changes enabled to implement the primary goal that triggered
> all these changes and cleanups: it was possible to add wake-one semantics
> for wakeup() in a clean way. (see the TASK_EXCLUSIVE stuff)
>
> compiler_warning is there to make old code generate more warning messages
> when you old-style initialize waitqueues.
>
> the debugging stuff will be removed before 2.4 - the frequency of
> waitqueue-related bugs is already very low. There is still some small
> benchmarking work to be done wrt. the wakeup order of exclusive tasks.
>
> -- mingo
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.212 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site