lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/7] async: Asynchronous function calls to speed up kernel boot
[A somewhat belated question...]

As I read the patch, I find the async_entry structure:

> +struct async_entry {
> + struct list_head list;
> + async_cookie_t cookie;
> + async_func_ptr *func;
> + void *data;
> + struct list_head *running;
> +};

The "running" field is, presumably, meant to hold a pointer to the
"running" queue to be used when this function is actually run. But, then,
I see:

> +async_cookie_t async_schedule(async_func_ptr *ptr, void *data)
> +{
> + return __async_schedule(ptr, data, &async_pending);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule);

It seems to me that you wanted &async_running there, no?

However, it doesn't matter in the current form of the patch:

> +/*
> + * pick the first pending entry and run it
> + */
> +static void run_one_entry(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct async_entry *entry;
> + ktime_t calltime, delta, rettime;
> +
> + /* 1) pick one task from the pending queue */
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&async_lock, flags);
> + if (list_empty(&async_pending))
> + goto out;
> + entry = list_first_entry(&async_pending, struct async_entry, list);
> +
> + /* 2) move it to the running queue */
> + list_del(&entry->list);
> + list_add_tail(&entry->list, &async_running);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags);

Given the way things are designed, don't you want to add the entry to
entry->running, rather than unconditionally to async_running? If not, I
don't see how calls to async_synchronize_cookie_special() can work right.

Of course, I'm probably just confused...enlighten me?

Thanks,

jon


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-13 21:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans