[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: complete_all and "forever" completions
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:45:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 03:30:54PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Reading Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt, complete_all() is
> Oh, there is documentation? /me goes read.
> > supposed to be usable with "forever" completions, i.e. when we have an
> > action that happens once and stays "done" for the rest of lifetime of an
> > object, no matter how many times we check for "doneness".
> I suppose you allude to this wording:
> "calls complete_all() to signal all current and future waiters."
> > However the
> > implementation for complete_all() simply sets the counter to be greater
> > or equal UINT_MAX/2 and do_wait_for_common() happily decreases it on
> > every call.
> This is indeed so.
> > Is it simply an artefact of [older] implementation where we do not
> > expect to make that many calls to wait_for_completion*() so that
> > completion that is signalled with ocmplete_all() is practically stays
> > signalled forever?
> The text says it was written against v3.18 or thereabout, and that
> implementation looks a lot like todays, so I doubt it ever worked like
> that.

bad wording maybe - the intent of setting it to UINT_MAX/2
as far as I can judge is though that UINT_MAX/2 effectively would be
infinity in practice. Is it realistic to assume that there would be
a complete_all() call followed by 2147483648 calls to wait_for_completion() ?
The note on "future waiters" was to make it clear that once you called
complete_all() future wait_for_completion() have no synchronizing effect.

> > Or do we need something like this in
> > do_wait_for_common():
> >
> > if (x->done < UINT_MAX/2)
> > x->done--;
> Depends a bit, do you really want this? Seems a bit daft to keep asking
> if its done already, seems like a waste of cycles to me.

I would claim that if you have a complete_all() (done=2147483648) and you
actually did manage to decrement it to 0 over time so a call finally blocks
(presumably for ever) this would be uncovering a deisgn bug in the use of
completion as such a setup does not make any sense (Or Im just not creative
enough to think of such a situation).


 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-26 11:16    [W:0.099 / U:1.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site