Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:34:05 +1100 > > From: Jonathan Gray <j...@jsg.id.au> > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 05:02:12PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > I'm facing a lock ordering issue while profiling the scheduler which > > > cannot be solved without using a different lock for the global sleepqueue > > > and the runqueues. > > > > > > The SCHED_LOCK() currently protects both data structures as well as the > > > related fields in 'struct proc'. One of this fields is `p_wchan' which > > > is obviously related to the global sleepqueue. > > > > > > The cleaning diff below introduces a new function, awake(), that unify > > > the multiple uses of the following idiom: > > > > > > if (p->p_stat == SSLEEP) > > > setrunnable(p); > > > else > > > unsleep(p); > > > > > > This is generally done after checking if the thread `p' is on the > > > sleepqueue. > > > > Why not name it wakeup_proc() instead or something like endsleep()? > > > > awake() does not describe the action that is being done and > > if (awake()) reads like it could be > > if (p->p_stat != SSLEEP && p->p_stat != SSTOP) > > Must say I had reservations about the "awake" name as well, but jsg@ > nails it here since it both a verb and an adjective which creates > confusion. Both names suggester here are find I think.
If you want an active verb that avoids the adjective confusion, you can consider awaken()
