From: "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com>
To: bigeasy@linutronix.de, tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave@stgolabs.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@horizon.com,
manfred@colorfullife.com, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc/msg: Implement lockless pipelined wakeups
Date: 31 Oct 2015 09:02:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151031130214.10598.qmail@ns.horizon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1510311118250.4032@nanos>
> Don't we need to keep that NULL init? I might be missing something.
I wondered the same thing, but on reading it, the cleanup is that he's
gotten rid of the need for the entire thing. Previously, there was a
mechanism for detecting "wakeup not quite finished" that used a NULL
value, but it's no longer needed.
The resultant busy-waiting on the part of the woken-up task was the
entire problem this patch aims to fix. So it gets rid of a whole lot
of code and barriers. And, as you noticed, the comments explaining them.
As the old code explained, the issue is that a task may exit as
soon as r_msg is set, so the wakeup procedure has to be:
- Ensure r_msg is set to NULL (special-case flag)
- Do the wake up
- Set r_msg to the final value
The woken-up task has to spin as long as r_msg is NULL. Ick.
However, a wake_q keeps a reference to a task, so exiting is
not a danger. As long as wake_q_add precedes setting r_msg,
all is well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-31 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-30 11:26 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-10-30 22:30 ` George Spelvin
2015-11-03 14:01 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-10-31 10:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-10-31 13:02 ` George Spelvin [this message]
2015-10-31 15:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-10-31 18:54 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-10-31 19:06 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-11-03 14:15 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-11-03 14:11 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-11-01 4:32 ` Manfred Spraul
2015-11-03 14:51 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=20151031130214.10598.qmail@ns.horizon.com \
--to=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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®