lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Warning from swake_up_all in 4.14.15-rt13 non-RT
On 2018-03-07 09:45:29 [-0600], Corey Minyard wrote:
> > I have no idea what is the wisest thing to do here. The obvious fix
> > would be to use the irqsafe() variant here and not drop the lock between
> > wake ups. That is essentially what swake_up_all_locked() does which I
> > need for the completions (and based on some testing most users have one
> > waiter except during PM and some crypto code).
> > It is probably no comparison to wake_up_q() (which does multiple wake
> > ups without a context switch) but then we did this before like that.
> >
> > Preferably we would have a proper list_splice() and some magic in the
> > "early" dequeue part that works.
> >
>
> Maybe just modify the block code to run the swake_up_all() call in a
> workqueue
> or tasklet?  If you think that works, I'll create a patch, test it, and
> submit it if
> all goes well.

It will work but I don't think pushing this into workqueue/tasklet is a
good idea. You want to wakeup all waiters on waitqueue X (probably one
waiter) and instead there is one one wakeup + ctx-switch which does the
final wakeup.
But now I had an idea: swake_up_all() could iterate over list and
instead performing wakes it would just wake_q_add() the tasks. Drop the
lock and then wake_up_q(). So in case there is wakeup pending and the
task removed itself from the list then the task may observe a spurious
wakeup.

> Thanks,
>
> -corey

Sebastian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-08 18:42    [W:0.105 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site