Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc6-arnd1+patches/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c
===================================================================
---
linux-2.6.19-rc6-arnd1+patches.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c
2006-12-04 10:56:04.730698720 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc6-arnd1+patches/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c
2007-01-15 16:22:31.808461448 -0600
@@ -84,15 +84,42 @@
ctx ? ctx->object_id : 0, spu);
}
+static void notify_spus_active(void)
+{
+ int node;
+ /* Wake up the active spu_contexts. When the awakened processes
+ * sees their notify_active flag is set, they will call
+ * spu_notify_already_active().
+ */
+ for (node = 0; node < MAX_NUMNODES; node++) {
+ struct spu *spu;
+ mutex_lock(&spu_prio->active_mutex[node]);
+ list_for_each_entry(spu, &spu_prio->active_list[node], list) {
You seem to have some issues with tabs vs spaces for indentation
here.
fixed
+ struct spu_context *ctx = spu->ctx;
+ spu->notify_active = 1;
Please make this a bit in the sched_flags field that's added in
the scheduler patch series I sent out.
I haven't seen that the scheduler patch series got applied yet. This
Cell spu task notification patch is a pre-req for OProfile development
to support profiling SPUs. When the scheduler patch gets applied to a
kernel version that fits our needs for our OProfile development, I don't
see any problem in using the sched_flags field instead of notify_active.
+ wake_up_all(&ctx->stop_wq);
+ smp_wmb();
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&spu_prio->active_mutex[node]);
+ }
+ yield();
+}
Why do you add the yield() here? yield is pretty much a sign
for a bug
Yes, the yield() and the memory barriers were leftovers from an earlier
ill-conceived attempt at solving this problem. They should have been
removed. They're gone now.
+void spu_notify_already_active(struct spu_context *ctx)
+{
+ struct spu *spu = ctx->spu;
+ if (!spu)
+ return;
+ spu_switch_notify(spu, ctx);
+}
Please just call spu_switch_notify directly from the only
I hesitated doing this since it would entail changing spu_switch_notify
from being static to non-static. I'd like to get Arnd's opinion on this
question before going ahead and making such a change.
caller. Also the check for ctx->spu beeing there is not
required if you look a the caller.
*stat = ctx->ops->status_read(ctx);
- if (ctx->state != SPU_STATE_RUNNABLE)
- return 1;
+ smp_rmb();
What do you need the barrier for here?
Removed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
