Hello,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c: In function 'sync_thread_master':
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c:1640:8: warning: unused variable 'ret'
> > [-Wunused-variable]
> >
> > Commit 35a2af94c7ce7130ca292c68b1d27fcfdb648f6b ("sched/wait: Make the
> > __wait_event*() interface more friendly") changed how the interruption
> > state is returned. However, sync_thread_master() ignores this state,
> > now causing a compile warning.
> >
> > According to Julian Anastasov <j...@ssi.bg>, this behavior is OK:
> >
> > "Yes, your patch looks ok to me. In the past we used ssleep() but IPVS
> > users were confused why IPVS threads increase the load average. So, we
> > switched to _interruptible calls and later the socket polling was
> > added."
> >
> > Document this, as requested by Peter Zijlstra, to avoid precious developers
> > disappearing in this pitfall in the future.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org>
> > ---
> > v2: Document that sync_thread_master() ignores the interruption state,
> >
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > index f63c2388f38d..db801263ee9f 100644
> > --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > @@ -1637,7 +1637,10 @@ static int sync_thread_master(void *data)
> > continue;
> > }
> > while (ip_vs_send_sync_msg(tinfo->sock, sb->mesg) < 0) {
> > - int ret = __wait_event_interruptible(*sk_sleep(sk),
> > + /* (Ab)use interruptible sleep to avoid increasing
> > + * the load avg.
> > + */
> > + __wait_event_interruptible(*sk_sleep(sk),
> > sock_writeable(sk) ||
> > kthread_should_stop());
> > if (unlikely(kthread_should_stop()))
>
> Fabio Estevam posted similar change too early but
> we are better with such comment.
>
> Acked-by: Julian Anastasov <j...@ssi.bg>
>
> Also, the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_IDLE idea looks good
> to me. If such change is planned may be the above patch
> better not to go via the ipvs-next tree to avoid conflicts?
> As we don't have any changes in this area let us know if
> someone takes the above patch for another tree.
Simon, lets apply this patch to ipvs-next tree...
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <j...@ssi.bg>
--
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/
