* [PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE flags
@ 2020-07-01 5:57 qiang.zhang
2020-08-21 11:13 ` Will Deacon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: qiang.zhang @ 2020-07-01 5:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz, mingo, will; +Cc: linux-kernel
From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
Remove WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE from "wq_entry.flags", using function
__add_wait_queue_entry_tail_exclusive substitution.
Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
---
kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
index 8bbafe3e5203..48e1c55c2e59 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
@@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ static void percpu_rwsem_wait(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, bool reader)
*/
wait = !__percpu_rwsem_trylock(sem, reader);
if (wait) {
- wq_entry.flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE | reader * WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM;
- __add_wait_queue_entry_tail(&sem->waiters, &wq_entry);
+ wq_entry.flags |= reader * WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM;
+ __add_wait_queue_entry_tail_exclusive(&sem->waiters, &wq_entry);
}
spin_unlock_irq(&sem->waiters.lock);
--
2.24.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE flags
2020-07-01 5:57 [PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE flags qiang.zhang
@ 2020-08-21 11:13 ` Will Deacon
2020-08-21 12:15 ` peterz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2020-08-21 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: qiang.zhang; +Cc: peterz, mingo, linux-kernel
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 01:57:20PM +0800, qiang.zhang@windriver.com wrote:
> From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
>
> Remove WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE from "wq_entry.flags", using function
> __add_wait_queue_entry_tail_exclusive substitution.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> index 8bbafe3e5203..48e1c55c2e59 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> @@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ static void percpu_rwsem_wait(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, bool reader)
> */
> wait = !__percpu_rwsem_trylock(sem, reader);
> if (wait) {
> - wq_entry.flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE | reader * WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM;
> - __add_wait_queue_entry_tail(&sem->waiters, &wq_entry);
> + wq_entry.flags |= reader * WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM;
> + __add_wait_queue_entry_tail_exclusive(&sem->waiters, &wq_entry);
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&sem->waiters.lock);
Seems straightforward enough:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE flags
2020-08-21 11:13 ` Will Deacon
@ 2020-08-21 12:15 ` peterz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: peterz @ 2020-08-21 12:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon; +Cc: qiang.zhang, mingo, linux-kernel, hubcap
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:13:44PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 01:57:20PM +0800, qiang.zhang@windriver.com wrote:
> > From: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
> >
> > Remove WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE from "wq_entry.flags", using function
> > __add_wait_queue_entry_tail_exclusive substitution.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> > index 8bbafe3e5203..48e1c55c2e59 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c
> > @@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ static void percpu_rwsem_wait(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, bool reader)
> > */
> > wait = !__percpu_rwsem_trylock(sem, reader);
> > if (wait) {
> > - wq_entry.flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE | reader * WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM;
> > - __add_wait_queue_entry_tail(&sem->waiters, &wq_entry);
> > + wq_entry.flags |= reader * WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM;
> > + __add_wait_queue_entry_tail_exclusive(&sem->waiters, &wq_entry);
> > }
> > spin_unlock_irq(&sem->waiters.lock);
>
> Seems straightforward enough:
Yeah, but I wonder why. Qiang, what made you write this patch?
afaict, there is only a single __add_wait_queue_entry_tail_exclusive()
user in the entire tree (two after this patch). I'm thinking it would be
much better to kill of that one user and remove the entire function.
something like the completely untested thing below, please double check.
---
diff --git a/fs/orangefs/orangefs-bufmap.c b/fs/orangefs/orangefs-bufmap.c
index 538e839590ef..b24e62e30822 100644
--- a/fs/orangefs/orangefs-bufmap.c
+++ b/fs/orangefs/orangefs-bufmap.c
@@ -80,17 +80,10 @@ static void put(struct slot_map *m, int slot)
static int wait_for_free(struct slot_map *m)
{
- long left = slot_timeout_secs * HZ;
- DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
+ long ret, left = slot_timeout_secs * HZ;
do {
- long n = left, t;
- if (likely(list_empty(&wait.entry)))
- __add_wait_queue_entry_tail_exclusive(&m->q, &wait);
- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
-
- if (m->c > 0)
- break;
+ long n = left;
if (m->c < 0) {
/* we are waiting for map to be installed */
@@ -98,27 +91,31 @@ static int wait_for_free(struct slot_map *m)
if (n > ORANGEFS_BUFMAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT_SECS * HZ)
n = ORANGEFS_BUFMAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT_SECS * HZ;
}
- spin_unlock(&m->q.lock);
- t = schedule_timeout(n);
- spin_lock(&m->q.lock);
- if (unlikely(!t) && n != left && m->c < 0)
- left = t;
- else
- left = t + (left - n);
- if (signal_pending(current))
- left = -EINTR;
- } while (left > 0);
- if (!list_empty(&wait.entry))
- list_del(&wait.entry);
- else if (left <= 0 && waitqueue_active(&m->q))
- __wake_up_locked_key(&m->q, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, NULL);
- __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+ ret = ___wait_event(m->q, m->c > 0, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 1, n,
+
+ spin_unlock(&m->lock);
+ __ret = schedule_timeout(__ret);
+ spin_lock(&m->lock);
+
+ );
- if (likely(left > 0))
+ if (ret) /* @cond := true || -ERESTARTSYS */
+ break;
+
+ left -= n;
+ } while (left > 0);
+
+ if (!ret)
return 0;
- return left < 0 ? -EINTR : -ETIMEDOUT;
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ if (waitqueue_active(&w->q))
+ __wake_up_locked_key(&m->q, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, NULL);
+ return -EINTR;
+ }
+
+ return -ETIMEDOUT;
}
static int get(struct slot_map *m)
diff --git a/include/linux/wait.h b/include/linux/wait.h
index 898c890fc153..841ef9ef15d9 100644
--- a/include/linux/wait.h
+++ b/include/linux/wait.h
@@ -185,13 +185,6 @@ static inline void __add_wait_queue_entry_tail(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head,
list_add_tail(&wq_entry->entry, &wq_head->head);
}
-static inline void
-__add_wait_queue_entry_tail_exclusive(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
-{
- wq_entry->flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
- __add_wait_queue_entry_tail(wq_head, wq_entry);
-}
-
static inline void
__remove_wait_queue(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
{
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-08-21 12:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-07-01 5:57 [PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE flags qiang.zhang
2020-08-21 11:13 ` Will Deacon
2020-08-21 12:15 ` peterz
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®