From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Ratan Nalumasu <rnalumasu@gmail.com>,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up_parent() to use filtered wakeup
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:21:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090624152143.GB23848@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090624091316.73D0F4059B@magilla.sf.frob.com>
On 06/24, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> Looks good, I'm glad to see this revived.
>
> I note that even simpler than eligible_child() is just:
I think the check below is orthogonal to eligible_child(). Not sure
eligible_child() can really help, but otoh it is cheap and doesn't hurt.
But perhaps we can kill it later.
> if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && wo->child_wait.private != p->parent)
> return 0;
>
> IIRC that is the test that Ratan's original patch used to address the
> particular application usage that first troubled him.
Aha, now I see what was the problem with Ratan's workload.
> But probably this
> is already what you meant by "more clever later"
I didn't mean this particular optimization, but it looks good to me.
> (and ->parent is perhaps
> not right in all cases there).
I think this is right... Except I'd like to avoid using ->parent.
> Your two patches as they are look safe and useful to me and I hope they can
> go in soon.
Thanks.
Yes I think these 2 patches should be applied first, even if eligible_child()
itself doesn't buy much. It will be cleaner if we add "real" checks on top.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-24 18:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-22 17:04 Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-24 9:13 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-24 15:21 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-06-24 18:57 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-24 16:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-24 19:42 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-24 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-24 20:51 ` Roland McGrath
[not found] ` <93ad5f3f0906252111n48742b9ax8dc2ad35b30f4292@mail.gmail.com>
2009-06-29 3:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-29 23:08 ` [rfc] do not place sub-threads on task_struct->children list Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-30 19:30 ` Roland McGrath
2009-07-01 5:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-30 19:22 ` [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up_parent() to use filtered wakeup Roland McGrath
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=20090624152143.GB23848@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rnalumasu@gmail.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=vmayatsk@redhat.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
Powered by JetHome