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.
next prev parent 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®