mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WAIT_BIT_QUEUE
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:31:48 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <409F7634.D1834978@tv-sign.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040510043010.0c9dd1e8.akpm@osdl.org>

Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:
> > 
> >  process waiting in wait_on_page_bit() will be woken only after
> >  the required bit is cleared.
> > 
> >  so there is no need to recheck the bit in do/while loop, because
> >  there is no false wakeups now.
> 
> yup.  Please see the new patches in 2.6.6-mm1 - the waiter puts the bit
> number into the waitqueue structure and the waker tests it before
> delivering the wakeup.

and it puts page or buffer_head in waitqueue instead of just flags.

> +static int page_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> +{
> +	struct page *page = key;
> +	struct page_wait_queue *wq;
> +
> +	wq = container_of(wait, struct page_wait_queue, wait);
> +	if (wq->page != page || test_bit(wq->bit, &page->flags))
> +		return 0;
> +	else
> +		return autoremove_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, NULL);
> +}

Why bother to check if (wq->page != page) ?
Yes, without this check waiting process can be waken _before_
wake_up_all(page_waitqueue(page)) but i see no problems here.

In fact, this can happen with clean kernel as well.
Let us suppose page_waitqueue(A) == page_waitqueue(B), and
we have two concurrent unlock_page() on these pages.

unlock_page(A)                       unlock_page(B)
TestClearPageLocked(A)
                                     TestClearPageLocked(B)
                                     wake_up_all(page_waitqueue(B)
                                           wakes up process waiting for A,
                                           it returns from wait_on_page_bit()
                                           because !test_bit(bit_nr, &page->flags)
wake_up_all(page_waitqueue(A)
     waiter already running.


So, I beleive, we need not key parameter in page_wake_function.
If we will put flags in waitqueue, bh_wake_function becomes identical
to page_wake_function, and we do not have to modify wakers at all,
there is no need to push page/buffer_head to wake_up().

So, new key parameter for wake_up becomes unneeded.

Oleg.

  reply	other threads:[~2004-05-10 12:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-05-10 11:24 Oleg Nesterov
2004-05-10 11:30 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-10 12:31   ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2004-05-10 14:55 ` Linus Torvalds

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=409F7634.D1834978@tv-sign.ru \
    --to=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®