mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.


  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