From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
fredrik.markstrom@windriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: lockless wake-queues
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:42:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150420144235.GX27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1429471060-21271-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:17:39PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> +void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + struct wake_q_node *node = &task->wake_q;
> +
> + /*
> + * Atomically grab the task, if ->wake_q is !nil already it means
> + * its already queued (either by us or someone else) and will get the
> + * wakeup due to that.
> + *
> + * This cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, which pairs with the write
> + * barrier implied by the wakeup in wake_up_list().
> + */
> + if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
> + return;
> +
> + get_task_struct(task);
> +
> + /*
> + * The head is context local, there can be no concurrency.
> + */
> + if (head->first == WAKE_Q_TAIL)
> + head->first = node;
> + else
> + head->last->next = node;
> +
> + head->last = node;
> +}
Do we want a sched_feat() that makes the above to an immediate wake-up
instead of the fancy thing? -- just for debuging/performance
measurements like things?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-20 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-19 19:17 [PATCH 0/2] " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-19 19:17 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched: " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-20 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-04-19 19:17 ` [PATCH 2/2] futex: lockless wakeups Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-20 6:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-20 13:55 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-20 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-20 17:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-20 16:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-20 18:24 [PATCH 1/2] sched: lockless wake-queues George Spelvin
2015-04-20 20:08 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-21 1:39 ` George Spelvin
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=20150420144235.GX27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=fredrik.markstrom@windriver.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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