Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:35:41 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock |
| |
On 01/23, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 09:25:50PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 01/21, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > int finish_wait_xxx(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait) > > { > > unsigned long flags; > > int woken; > > > > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > > spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags); > > woken = list_empty(&wait->task_list); > > list_del_init(&wait->task_list); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags); > > > > return woken; > > } > > Hehe, there is only n solutions to this problem. I had thought about > that too, even written it down. But I was not sure if taking the > spinlock, toggling irqs and (re)storing the flags is better than an > untaken branch. ;)
Yes. Fortunately, this is "unlikely" path.
> > if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags)) { > > if ((ret = (*action)(q->key.flags))) { > > if (finish_wait_xxx(...)) > > __wake_up_bit(...); > > return ret; > > } > > } > > If you don't mind putting a second finish_wait() in there (you still > need the one after the loop, right?), we can fix up my version to not > check ret twice but do finish_wait() as you describe and then the > test_bit() && wake up: > > do { > if (test_bit()) > if ((ret = action())) { > finish_wait() > smp_rmb() > if (!test_bit()) > __wake_up_bit()
Yes sure. Except this wakeup can be false.
> > int finish_wait_yyy(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait, > > int mode, void *key) > > { > > unsigned long flags; > > int woken; > > > > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > > spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags); > > woken = list_empty(&wait->task_list); > > if (woken) > > __wake_up_common(q, mode, 1, key); > > else > > list_del_init(&wait->task_list); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags); > > > > return woken; > > } > > > > Perhaps a bit too much for this particular case, but I am thinking > > about other cases when we need to abort the exclusive wait. > > > > For example, don't we have the similar problems with > > wait_event_interruptible_exclusive() ? > > Yeah, we do IIUC. Then having finish_wait() extended is probably a > good idea.
Yes.
It is no that I think this new helper is really needed for this particular case, personally I agree with the patch you sent.
But if we have other places with the similar problem, then perhaps it is better to introduce the special finish_wait_exclusive() or whatever.
Oleg.
| |