On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 12:40:46PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 04:15:46PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > > Non-leader revalidator thread uses pthread_barrier_* functions in their > > > main loop to synchronize with leader thread. However, since those > threads > > > only call poll_block() intermittently, the poll interval check in > > > poll_block() can wrongly take the time since last call as poll interval > > > and issue the following warnings: > > > > > > "Unreasonably long XXXXms poll interval". > > > > > > To prevent it, this commit implements the barrier struct and operations > > > for OVS which allow thread waiting on barrier via poll_block(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com> > > > > One advantage of such an OVS-specific barrier could be that one could > > wait for the barrier or another event, or even add a barrier wait to > > the main poll loop for a given thread. To do that, we would want to > > make ovs_barrier_wait() only schedule a wake-up (with seq_wait()) > > instead of actually calling poll_block(). Did you consider that? > > Actually, never mind. Let's not generalize this before we need it. > > Would you mind revising this a bit? First, let's add a comment on > each function. Second, most of the functions that end in _wait() in > OVS don't actually wait, they usually just register for poll_block() > to wake up. We usually use "block" to indicate a function that > blocks, e.g. poll_block(), vconn_open_block(), jsonrpc_send_block(). > So, would you mind renaming ovs_barrier_wait() to something with > "block" in the name? >
Sure, I'll work on that. Thx
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
