mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Timur Tabi <ttabi@interactivesi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Kernel Janitor's TODO list
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:26:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010129182633.A2522@gruyere.muc.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3A7459AA.84CDCF7B@colorfullife.com> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10101281949200.13259-100000@zeus.fh-brandenburg.de> <Ys3tl.A.KcH.rHad6@dinero.interactivesi.com>
In-Reply-To: <Ys3tl.A.KcH.rHad6@dinero.interactivesi.com>; from ttabi@interactivesi.com on Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:01:31AM -0600

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:01:31AM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote:
> What makes it more frustrating is that some people on this list talk as if
> things things are common knowledge.  I've been following this mailing list for
> months, and until today I had no idea sleep_on was bad.  All the documentation
> I've read to date freely uses sleep_on in the sample code.  In fact, I still

When Linux documentation uses sleep_on it is probably broken and should be 
fixed. Unix (not linux) documentation uses sleep_on commonly, but Unix has
different wait queue semantics and it is usually safe there. 

You're probably reading the wrong documentation, e.g. Rusty's 
kernel hacking HOWTO describes it correctly (and a lot of the other rules) 

> don't even know WHY it's bad.  Not only that, but what am I supposed to use
> instead? 

You can miss wakeups. The standard pattern is:

	get locks

	add_wait_queue(&waitqueue, &wait);
	for (;;) { 
		if (condition you're waiting for is true) 
			break; 
		unlock any non sleeping locks you need for condition
		__set_task_state(current, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); 
		schedule(); 
		__set_task_state(current, TASK_RUNNING); 
		reaquire locks
	}
	remove_wait_queue(&waitqueue, &wait); 

When you want to handle signals you can check for them before or after the
condition check. Also use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in this case.

When you need a timeout use schedule_timeout().

For some cases you can also use the wait_event_* macros which encapsulate
that for you, assuming condition can be tested/used lockless. 

An alternative is to use a semaphore, although that behaves a bit differently
under load.

> This is what I find most frustrating about Linux.  If I were a Windows driver
> programmer, I could walk into any bookstore and pick up any of a dozen books
> that explains everything, leaving no room for doubt.

Just why are Windows drivers so buggy then?


-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-01-29 17:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-01-28 16:14 Manfred Spraul
2001-01-28 14:36 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2001-01-28 16:45   ` Manfred Spraul
2001-01-28 17:07     ` David Woodhouse
2001-01-28 17:40       ` Manfred Spraul
2001-01-28 18:51         ` Roman Zippel
2001-01-29 17:01         ` Timur Tabi
2001-01-29 17:10           ` John Levon
2001-01-29 18:27             ` David D.W. Downey
2001-01-29 20:44               ` davej
2001-01-29 20:51               ` Timur Tabi
2001-01-29 20:56                 ` Rasmus Andersen
2001-01-30  0:29                 ` Peter Samuelson
2001-01-30  0:20               ` Ingo Oeser
2001-01-30 11:11               ` David Woodhouse
2001-01-30 16:52               ` Timur Tabi
2001-01-31  0:06                 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-01-31  0:09                 ` Timur Tabi
2001-01-31  9:14                   ` David Woodhouse
2001-01-30 17:10               ` David Woodhouse
2001-01-29 17:26           ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2001-01-29 19:47             ` Roman Zippel
2001-01-29 20:35               ` Andi Kleen
2001-02-16 14:29                 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-02-16 14:26               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-01-31 17:57         ` Alan Cox
2001-01-31 19:15           ` Manfred Spraul
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-01-30  1:22 Rusty Russell
2001-01-30  3:08 ` Andrew Morton
2001-01-27 17:11 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2001-01-28 15:20 ` David Woodhouse
2001-01-28 14:03   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2001-01-28 15:49   ` Michael H. Warfield
2001-01-28 16:13 ` Andrew Morton
2001-01-28 14:28   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2001-01-28 14:33     ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2001-01-30  1:05   ` Rusty Russell
2001-01-30 11:19     ` Daniel Phillips
2001-01-30 17:49       ` Daniel Phillips

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20010129182633.A2522@gruyere.muc.suse.de \
    --to=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ttabi@interactivesi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®