[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] POSIX message queues, 2.5.50
    On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Manfred Spraul wrote:

    > The bad thing is that you use __add_wait_queue() and call the wait queue
    > locking functions yourself. This is not needed. The only function that
    > was permitted to do that is sleep_on(), and that will die soon. I've
    > quoted sleep_on as a reminder to kill that code in kernel/sched.c.
    > Just use add_wait_queue() instead of the internal functions. Or
    > prepare_to_wait/finish_wait, that has a slighly lower locking overhead.

    Some more explanation. Originally I used sleep_on(). But when it occurred
    to not work well on SMP I just make my own version of it with queue-wide
    semaphore protecting whole code. Then it started to work, but it was ugly,
    again I agree. Now I've made my own function taking wait_event() as a
    template: I've removed checking for condition and add process to wait
    queue with EXCLUSIVE flag. On uniprocessor it works well - but on SMP I
    just a moment before had the same race - (wq were corrupted). When I added
    sem IN this function it started to work ok. Why (I mean why it didn't
    worked previously - in such a case I can imagine that wait_event would
    also produce some races) ?

    Now it looks like this:

    +void inline wait_exclusive(wait_queue_head_t *wq)
    + wait_queue_t wait;
    + init_waitqueue_entry(&wait, current);
    + add_wait_queue_exclusive(wq, &wait);
    + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
    ++ up(&queue_sem)
    + schedule();
    ++ down(&queue_sem);
    + current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
    + remove_wait_queue(wq, &wait);

    I hope it is acceptable (?)

    > Btw, could you explain how your message priority implementation works?
    > If I understand it correctly, wq_add maintains a priority sorted linked
    > list. wq_sleep() waits until the process becomes the first entry in the
    > priority queue.
    > - You use the pid value as the thread identifier - why? Usually the task
    > struct pointer is used within the kernel.

    Ups :-). Yes it will let me remove one extra field from struct.

    > - Is it correct that wq_wakeup wakes up all processes that sleep in
    > wq_send, and then the highest priority process continues? What about
    > waking up just the highest priority process? Look at the wakeup code in
    > ipc/msg.c - it implement message types that way. The sender looks
    > through the list of waiting receivers, and directly sends the message to
    > the right receiver [pipelined_send()]

    Yes it was correct, but useless. Now I wakeup only one process. But note
    that we use different algorithm then in msg.c: we haven't "pipelined" s&r.

    I have applied previous suggestions & made some improvements - it works

    If you have some further notices please send (especially about first

    Thanks again

    Krzysiek Benedyczak

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.027 / U:7.396 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site