* Peter Zijlstra | 2015-02-18 15:03:20 [+0100]:
>On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 06:44:19PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> * Peter Zijlstra | 2015-01-21 16:07:16 [+0100]:
>>
>> >On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 01:16:13PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> >> I'm actually wondering if we should just nuke the _interruptible()
>> >> version of swait. As it should only be all interruptible or all not
>> >> interruptible, that the swait_wake() should just do the wake up
>> >> regardless. In which case, swait_wake() is good enough. No need to have
>> >> different versions where people may think do something special.
>> >>
>> >> Peter?
>> >
>> >Yeah, I think the lastest thing I have sitting here on my disk only has
>> >the swake_up() which does TASK_NORMAL, no choice there.
>>
>> what is the swait status in terms of mainline? This sounds like it
>> beeing worked on.
>> I could take the series but then I would drop it again if the mainline
>> implementation changes…
>
>Well, 'worked' on might be putting too much on it, its one of the many
>many 'spare' time things that never get attention unless people bug me
>;-)
>
>The below is my current patch, I've not actually tried it yet, I (think
>I) had one patch doing some conversions but I'm having trouble locating
>it.
>
>Mostly-Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org>
>---
> include/linux/swait.h | 172
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/sched/swait.c | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 294 insertions(+)
>
>--- /dev/null
>+++ b/include/linux/swait.h
>@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
>+#ifndef _LINUX_SWAIT_H
>+#define _LINUX_SWAIT_H
>+
>+#include <linux/list.h>
>+#include <linux/stddef.h>
>+#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>+#include <asm/current.h>
>+
>+/*
>+ * Simple wait queues
>+ *
>+ * While these are very similar to the other/complex wait queues (wait.h) the
>+ * most important difference is that the simple waitqueue allows for
>+ * deterministic behaviour -- IOW it has strictly bounded IRQ and lock hold
>+ * times.
>+ *
>+ * In order to make this so, we had to drop a fair number of features of the
>+ * other waitqueue code; notably:
>+ *
>+ * - mixing INTERRUPTIBLE and UNINTERRUPTIBLE sleeps on the same waitqueue;
>+ * all wakeups are TASK_NORMAL in order to avoid O(n) lookups for the right
>+ * sleeper state.
>+ *
>+ * - the exclusive mode; because this requires preserving the list order
>+ * and this is hard.
>+ *
>+ * - custom wake functions; because you cannot give any guarantees about
>+ * random code.
>+ *
>+ * As a side effect of this; the data structures are slimmer.
>+ *
>+ * One would recommend using this wait queue where possible.
>+ */
>+
>+struct task_struct;
>+
>+struct swait_queue_head {
>+ raw_spinlock_t lock;
>+ struct list_head task_list;
>+};
>+
>+struct swait_queue {
>+ struct task_struct *task;
>+ struct list_head task_list;
I would prefer something different than task_list here since this is an
item. Scrolling down you tried to use node once so maybe that would be
good here :)
>+};
>+
>+#define __SWAITQUEUE_INITIALIZER(name) { \
>+ .task = current, \
>+ .task_list = LIST_HEAD_INIT((name).task_list), \
>+}
>+
>+#define DECLARE_SWAITQUEUE(name) \
>+ struct swait_queue name = __SWAITQUEUE_INITIALIZER(name)
>+
>+#define __SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INITIALIZER(name) {
>\
>+ .lock = __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(name.lock), \
>+ .task_list = LIST_HEAD_INIT((name).task_list), \
>+}
>+
>+#define DECLARE_SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(name)
>\
>+ struct swait_queue_head name = __SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INITIALIZER(name)
>+
>+extern void __init_swait_queue_head(struct swait_queue_head *q, const char
>*name,
>+ struct lock_class_key *key);
>+
>+#define init_swait_queue_head(q) \
>+ do { \
>+ static struct lock_class_key __key; \
>+ __init_swait_queue_head((q), #q, &__key); \
>+ } while (0)
>+
>+#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>+# define __SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INIT_ONSTACK(name) \
>+ ({ init_swait_queue_head(&name); name; })
>+# define DECLARE_SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_ONSTACK(name) \
>+ struct swait_queue_head name = __SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INIT_ONSTACK(name)
>+#else
>+# define DECLARE_SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_ONSTACK(name) \
>+ DECLARE_SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(name)
>+#endif
>+
>+static inline int swait_active(struct swait_queue_head *q)
>+{
>+ return !list_empty(&q->task_list);
In RT there was a smp_mb() which you dropped and I assume you had
reasons for it. I assumed that one can perform list_empty_careful()
without a lock if the items were removed with list_del_init(). But since
nothing in -RT blow up so far I guess this here is legal, too :)
>+}
>+
>+extern void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q);
>+extern void swake_up_all(struct swait_queue_head *q);
>+extern void swake_up_locked(struct swait_queue_head *q);
>+
>+extern void __prepare_to_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue
>*wait);
>+extern void prepare_to_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue
>*wait, int state);
>+extern long prepare_to_swait_event(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct
>swait_queue *wait, int state);
>+
>+extern void __finish_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue
>*wait);
>+extern void finish_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue
>*wait);
>+
>+/* as per ___wait_event() but for swait, therefore "exclusive == 0" */
>+#define ___swait_event(wq, condition, state, ret, cmd)
>\
>+({ \
>+ struct swait_queue __wait; \
>+ long __ret = ret; \
>+ \
>+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&__wait.task_list); \
>+ for (;;) { \
>+ long __int = prepare_to_swait_event(&wq, &__wait, state);\
>+ \
>+ if (condition) \
>+ break; \
>+ \
>+ if (___wait_is_interruptible(state) && __int) { \
>+ __ret = __int; \
>+ break; \
>+ } \
>+ \
>+ cmd; \
>+ } \
>+ finish_swait(&wq, &__wait); \
>+ __ret; \
>+})
>+
>+#define __swait_event(wq, condition) \
>+ (void)___swait_event(wq, condition, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 0, \
>+ schedule())
>+
>+#define swait_event(wq, condition) \
>+do { \
>+ if (condition) \
>+ break; \
>+ __swait_event(wq, condition); \
>+} while (0)
>+
>+#define __swait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \
>+ ___swait_event(wq, ___wait_cond_timeout(condition), \
>+ TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, timeout, \
>+ __ret = schedule_timeout(__ret))
>+
>+#define swait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \
>+({ \
>+ long __ret = timeout; \
>+ if (!___wait_cond_timeout(condition)) \
>+ __ret = __swait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout); \
>+ __ret; \
>+})
>+
>+#define __swait_event_interruptible(wq, condition) \
>+ ___swait_event(wq, condition, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 0, \
>+ schedule())
>+
>+#define swait_event_interruptible(wq, condition) \
>+({ \
>+ int __ret = 0; \
>+ if (!(condition)) \
>+ __ret = __swait_event_interruptible(wq, condition); \
>+ __ret; \
>+})
>+
>+#define __swait_event_interruptible_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \
>+ ___swait_event(wq, ___wait_cond_timeout(condition), \
>+ TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, timeout, \
>+ __ret = schedule_timeout(__ret))
>+
>+#define swait_event_interruptible_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \
>+({ \
>+ long __ret = timeout; \
>+ if (!___wait_cond_timeout(condition)) \
>+ __ret = __swait_event_interruptible_timeout(wq, \
>+ condition, timeout); \
>+ __ret; \
>+})
>+
>+#endif /* _LINUX_SWAIT_H */
>--- /dev/null
>+++ b/kernel/sched/swait.c
>@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
>+
>+#include <linux/swait.h>
>+
>+void __init_swait_queue_head(struct swait_queue_head *q, const char *name,
>+ struct lock_class_key *key)
>+{
>+ raw_spin_lock_init(&q->lock);
>+ lockdep_set_class_and_name(&q->lock, key, name);
>+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&q->task_list);
>+}
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__init_swait_queue_head);
>+
>+/*
>+ * The thing about the wake_up_state() return value; I think we can ignore it.
>+ *
>+ * If for some reason it would return 0, that means the previously waiting
>+ * task is already running, so it will observe condition true (or has
>already).
>+ */
>+void swake_up_locked(struct swait_queue_head *q)
>+{
>+ struct swait_queue *curr;
>+
>+ list_for_each_entry(curr, &q->task_list, task_list) {
>+ wake_up_process(curr->task);
okay. So since we limit everything to TASK_NORMAL which has to sleep
while on the list there is no need to check if we actually woken up
someone.
>+ list_del_init(&curr->task_list);
>+ break;
>+ }
>+}
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_up_locked);
>+
>+void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q)
>+{
>+ unsigned long flags;
>+
>+ if (!swait_active(q))
>+ return;
>+
>+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
>+ __swake_up_locked(q);
I thing this should have been swake_up_locked() instead since
__swake_up_locked() isn't part of this patch.
Just a nitpick: later there is __prepare_to_swait() and __finish_swait()
which have the __ prefix instead a _locked suffix. Not sure what is
better for a better for a public API but maybe one way would be good.
>+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
>+}
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_up);
>+
>+/*
>+ * Does not allow usage from IRQ disabled, since we must be able to
>+ * release IRQs to guarantee bounded hold time.
>+ */
>+void swake_up_all(struct swait_queue_head *q)
>+{
>+ struct swait_queue *curr, *next;
>+ LIST_HEAD(tmp);
WARN_ON(irqs_disabled()) ?
>+ if (!swait_active(q))
>+ return;
>+
>+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
>+ list_splice_init(&q->task_list, &tmp);
>+ while (!list_empty(&tmp)) {
>+ curr = list_first_entry(&tmp, typeof(curr), task_list);
>+
>+ wake_up_state(curr->task, state);
>+ list_del_init(&curr->task_list);
So because the task may timeout and remove itself from the list at
anytime you need to hold the lock during wakeup and the removal from the
list
>+
>+ if (list_empty(&tmp))
>+ break;
>+
>+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&q->lock);
and you drop the lock after each iteration in case there is an IRQ
pending or the task, that has been just woken up, has a higher priority
than the current task and needs to get on the CPU.
Not sure if this case matters:
- _this_ task (wake_all) prio 120
- first task in queue prio 10, RR
- second task in queue prio 9, RR
the *old* behavior would put the second task before the first task on
CPU. The *new* behaviour puts the first task on the CPU after dropping
the lock. The second task (that has a higher priority but nobody knows)
has to wait until the first one is done (and anything else that might
been woken up in the meantime with a higher prio than 120).
>+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
>+ }
>+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&q->lock);
>+}
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_up_all);
>+
>+void __prepare_to_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait)
>+{
>+ wait->task = current;
>+ if (list_empty(&wait->node))
>+ list_add(&wait->task_list, &q->task_list);
>+}
>+
>+void prepare_to_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait,
>int state)
>+{
>+ unsigned long flags;
>+
>+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
>+ __prepare_to_swait(q, wait);
>+ set_current_state(state);
>+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
>+}
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(prepare_to_swait);
>+
>+long prepare_to_swait_event(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue
>*wait, int state)
>+{
>+ if (signal_pending_state(state, current))
>+ return -ERESTARTSYS;
>+
>+ prepare_to_swait(q, wait, state);
>+
>+ return 0;
>+}
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(prepare_to_swait_event);
>+
>+void __finish_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait)
this one has no users the __ suggests that it is locked edition. Maybe
it is for the completions…
>+{
>+ __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>+ if (!list_empty(&wait->task_list))
>+ list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
>+}
>+
>+void finish_swait(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct swait_queue *wait)
>+{
>+ unsigned long flags;
>+
>+ __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>+
>+ if (!list_empty_careful(&wait->task_list)) {
>+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
>+ list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
>+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
>+ }
>+}
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(finish_swait);
Sebastian
--
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/
