On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:23:04 +0100
Lukas Czerner <lczer...@redhat.com> wrote:
> New wait_event_lock_irq{,cmd} macros added. This commit moves the
> private wait_event_lock_irq() macro from MD to regular wait includes,
> introduces new macro wait_event_lock_irq_cmd() instead of using the old
> method with omitting cmd parameter which is ugly and makes a use of new
> macros in the MD.
>
> The use of new interface is when one have a special lock to protect data
> structures used in the condition, or one also needs to invoke "cmd"
> before putting it to sleep.
>
> Both new macros are expected to be called with the lock taken. The lock
> is released before sleep and reacquired afterwards. We will leave the
> macro with the lock held.
Moving generic code out of md is a good thing. It never should have
been put there. Bad md.
> ...
>
> +#define __wait_event_lock_irq(wq, condition, lock, cmd) \
> +do { \
> + wait_queue_t __wait; \
> + init_waitqueue_entry(&__wait, current); \
> + \
The above two lines should be swapped - the blank line goes between
end-of-locals and start-of-code.
> + add_wait_queue(&wq, &__wait); \
> + for (;;) { \
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); \
> + if (condition) \
> + break; \
> + spin_unlock_irq(&lock); \
> + cmd; \
> + schedule(); \
> + spin_lock_irq(&lock); \
> + } \
> + current->state = TASK_RUNNING; \
> + remove_wait_queue(&wq, &__wait); \
> +} while (0)
I'm scratching my head a bit over which situations this will be used
in, particularly outside md.
Because calling schedule() immediately after calling `cmd' might be a
problem for some callers. Or at least, suboptimal. If that evaluation
of `cmd' results in `condition' becoming true then we don't *want* to
call schedule(). Yes, `cmd' would have put this thread into
TASK_RUNNING, but it was just a waste of cycles.
So I wonder if we should retest `condition' there. Or, perhaps, test
the return value of `cmd'.
Also, wait_event() uses prepare_to_wait(). It's a bit neater and more
efficient because the wakeup removes the waiter from the waitqueue. I
wonder if we can use prepare_to_wait() here.
Also, we will surely end up needing TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE versions of
these macros, so you may as well design for that (or actually implement
them) in version 1.
> +/**
> + * wait_event_lock_irq_cmd - sleep until a condition gets true. The
> + * condition is checked under the lock. This
> + * is expected to be called with the lock
> + * taken.
> + * @wq: the waitqueue to wait on
> + * @condition: a C expression for the event to wait for
> + * @lock: a locked lock, which will be released before cmd and schedule()
> + * and reacquired afterwards.
@lock isn't just any old lock. It must have type spinlock_t. It's
worth mentioning this here. This is a significant restriction of this
interface!
> + * @cmd: a command which is invoked outside the critical section before
> + * sleep
> + *
> + * The process is put to sleep (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) until the
> + * @condition evaluates to true. The @condition is checked each time
> + * the waitqueue @wq is woken up.
> + *
> + * wake_up() has to be called after changing any variable that could
> + * change the result of the wait condition.
> + *
> + * This is supposed to be called with holding the lock. The lock is
s/with/while/
> + * dropped before invoking the cmd and going to sleep and reacquired
s/reacquired/ is reacquired/
> + * afterwards.
> + */
> +#define wait_event_lock_irq_cmd(wq, condition, lock, cmd) \
> +do { \
> + if (condition) \
> + break; \
> + __wait_event_lock_irq(wq, condition, lock, cmd); \
> +} while (0)
> +
> +/**
> + * wait_event_lock_irq - sleep until a condition gets true. The
> + * condition is checked under the lock. This
> + * is expected to be called with the lock
> + * taken.
> + * @wq: the waitqueue to wait on
> + * @condition: a C expression for the event to wait for
> + * @lock: a locked lock, which will be released before schedule()
> + * and reacquired afterwards.
> + *
> + * The process is put to sleep (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) until the
> + * @condition evaluates to true. The @condition is checked each time
> + * the waitqueue @wq is woken up.
> + *
> + * wake_up() has to be called after changing any variable that could
> + * change the result of the wait condition.
> + *
> + * This is supposed to be called with holding the lock. The lock is
> + * dropped before going to sleep and reacquired afterwards.
> + */
> +#define wait_event_lock_irq(wq, condition, lock) \
> +do { \
> + if (condition) \
> + break; \
> + __wait_event_lock_irq(wq, condition, lock, ); \
> +} while (0)
> +
> /*
> * These are the old interfaces to sleep waiting for an event.
> * They are racy. DO NOT use them, use the wait_event* interfaces above.
>
> ...
>
--
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/
