On Wed 01-07-15 23:06:24, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jan.
>
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 06:04:37PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > I'd find it better to extend completions to allow doing what you need. It
> > isn't that special. It seems it would be enough to implement
> >
> > void wait_for_completions(struct completion *x, int n);
> >
> > where @n is the number of completions to wait for. And the implementation
> > can stay as is, only in do_wait_for_common() we change checks for x->done ==
> > 0 to "x->done < n". That's about it...
>
> I don't know. While I agree that it'd be nice to have a generic event
> count & trigger mechanism in the kernel, I don't think extending
> completion is a good idea - the count then works both ways as the
> event counter && listener counter and effectively becomes a semaphore
> which usually doesn't end well. There are very few cases where we
> want the counter works both ways and I personally think we'd be far
> better served if those rare cases implement something custom rather
> than generic mechanism becoming cryptic trying to cover everything.
Let me phrase my objection this differently: Instead of implementing custom
synchronization mechanism, you could as well do:
int count_submitted; /* Number of submitted works we want to wait for */
struct completion done;
...
submit works with 'done' as completion.
...
while (count_submitted--)
wait_for_completion(&done);
And we could also easily optimize that loop and put it in
kernel/sched/completion.c. The less synchronization mechanisms we have the
better I'd think...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/
