On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 11:29 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> > positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
> > elapses. However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed. If the wake-up
> > handler is delayed enough, the time remaining until timeout will be
> > calculated as 0 - and passed back as a return value - even if the
> > condition became true before the timeout has passed.
>
> Fun.
>
> > Fix this by returning at least 1 if the condition becomes true. This
> > semantic is in line with what wait_for_condition_timeout() does; see
> > commit bb10ed09 - "sched: fix wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious
> > failure under heavy load".
>
> But now you can't distinguish the timer expiring first, if the thread doing
> the waiting gets delayed sufficiently long for the event to happen.
I'm trying to understand what sequence do you mean. I can think of the
following - as an example - in case of starting a transaction that will
set a completion flag:
waiter completion handler
start transaction
set completion_flag
ret = wait_event_timeout(timeout, completion_flag)
In this case ret will be timeout which is the original behavior, so
should be ok. One exception is if timeout=0 to begin with, since then -
after this change - ret will be 1. But I can't see how that use case is
useful. I guess I'm missing something, could you elaborate?
--Imre
> I'm not sure there's a good answer - except maybe making the timer expiry
> handler check the condition (which would likely get really yucky really
> quickly).
>
> David
--
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/
