lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/23] rcu: Break up rcu_gp_kthread() into subfunctions
    On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 11:49:21AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
    > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 10:32:07AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:39:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > > On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > > > +static int rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
    > > > > +{
    > > > > + struct rcu_state *rsp = arg;
    > > > > + struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
    > > > > +
    > > > > + for (;;) {
    > > > > +
    > > > > + /* Handle grace-period start. */
    > > > > + for (;;) {
    > > > > + wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq, rsp->gp_flags);
    > > > > + if (rsp->gp_flags && rcu_gp_init(rsp))
    > > > > + break;
    > > > > + cond_resched();
    > > > > + flush_signals(current);
    > > > > + }
    > > > >
    > > > > /* Handle grace-period end. */
    > > > > for (;;) {
    > > > > wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq,
    > > > > !ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask) &&
    > > > > !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp));
    > > > > if (!ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask) &&
    > > > > + !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp) &&
    > > > > + rcu_gp_cleanup(rsp))
    > > > > break;
    > > > > + cond_resched();
    > > > > flush_signals(current);
    > > > > }
    > > > > }
    > > > > return 0;
    > > > > }
    > > >
    > > > Should there not be a kthread_stop() / kthread_park() call somewhere in
    > > > there?
    > >
    > > The kthread stops only when the system goes down, so no need for any
    > > kthread_stop() or kthread_park(). The "return 0" suppresses complaints
    > > about falling of the end of a non-void function.
    >
    > Huh, I thought GCC knew to not emit that warning unless it actually
    > found control flow reaching the end of the function; since the infinite
    > loop has no break in it, you shouldn't need the return. Annoying.
    >
    > > > Also, it could be me, but all those nested for (;;) loops make the flow
    > > > rather non-obvious.
    > >
    > > For those two loops, I suppose I could pull the cond_resched() and
    > > flush_signals() to the top, and make a do-while out of it.
    >
    > I think it makes more sense to move the wait_event_interruptible to the
    > bottom, and make a while out of it.

    I know!!! Let's compromise and put the loop exit in the middle of the
    loop!!! Oh, wait...

    ;-), Paul



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-09-06 23:03    [W:5.243 / U:0.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site