Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Sep 2004 02:42:47 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [1/4] standardize bit waiting data type |
| |
William Lee Irwin III wrote: >>+ prepare_to_wait(wqh, &wait.wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); >>+ if (buffer_locked(bh)) { >>+ sync_buffer(bh); >>+ io_schedule(); >>+ } >> finish_wait(wqh, &wait.wait); >> }
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:53:55AM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > Why don't you need a do..while loop any more ? > There is also no loop in __wait_on_bit() in the completed patch series.
Part of the point of filtered waitqueues is to reestablish wake-one semantics. This means two things: (a) those waiting merely for a bit to clear with no need to set it, i.e. all they want is to know a transition from set to clear occurred, are only woken once and don't need to loop waking and sleeping (b) Of those tasks waiting for a bit to clear so they can set it exclusively, only one needs to be woken, and after the first is woken, it promises to clear the bit again, so there is no need to wake more tasks.
These two aspects of wake-one semantics give it highly attractive performance characteristics.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |