From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
hhuang@redhat.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: fix lockup, restore FIFO behavior
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:49:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51A0C166.4000503@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1369472095-30195-1-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
On 05/25/2013 04:54 AM, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Hi Rik,
>
> I came up with a completely different approach:
>
> The patch
> a) fixes a lockup due to a missing restart.
> b) makes the code again FIFO.
>
> Changes:
> - the wait-for-zero operations are moved into seperate lists. Thus they can
> be checked seperately, without rescanning the whole queue.
> - If a complex operating arrives, then all pending change operations are
> moved into the global queue. This allows to keep everything FIFO.
>
> Advantage:
> - Fewer restarts in update_queue(), because pending wait-for-zero do not
> force a restart anymore.
> - Efficient handling of wait-for-zero semops, both simple and complex.
> - FIFO. Dropping FIFO is a user visible change, and I'm a coward.
> - simpler check_restart logic.
>
> Disadvantage:
> When one complex operation arrives, then the semaphore array goes into a
> complex_present mode that always acquires the global lock. Even when the
> complex operations have completed, pending simple decrease operations
> prevent the array from switching back. The switch happens when
> there are only simple wait-for-zero semops (or no semops at all).
>
> But: Let's wait if this really exists: An application that does rarely
> complex operations (and that doesn't prefer FIFO semantics).
I do not like that downside at all.
The danger of staying in "too slow to be useful" mode forever
is really not a risk I want to take.
--
All rights reversed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-25 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-25 8:54 Manfred Spraul
2013-05-25 13:49 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2013-05-25 15:16 ` Manfred Spraul
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=51A0C166.4000503@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.com \
--cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
--cc=hhuang@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®