On Sat, 31 Oct 2015, George Spelvin wrote:
> > 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.
Right. I figured that after staring some more into it. Though it would
be nice if exactly that explanation is in the code.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
