On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 16:45, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2006 14:50:29 +0800
> Zou Nan hai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 16:04, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On 28 Jun 2006 14:02:57 +0800
> > > Zou Nan hai <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > However I think cond_resched_lock and cond_resched_softirq also need fix
> > > > > > to make the semantic consistent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please check the following patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah. I think the return value from these functions should mean "something
> > > > > disruptive happened", if you like.
> > > > >
> > > > > See, the callers of cond_resched_lock() aren't interested in whether
> > > > > cond_resched_lock() actually called schedule(). They want to know whether
> > > > > cond_resched_lock() dropped the lock. Because if the lock was dropped, the
> > > > > caller needs to take some special action, regardless of whether schedule()
> > > > > was finally called.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I think the patch I queued is OK, agree?
> > > >
> > > > I am afraid the code like cond_resched_lock check in
> > > > fs/jbd/checkpoint.c log_do_checkpoint may fall into endless retry in
> > > > some condition, will it?
> > >
> > > Oh crap, yes. If need_resched() and system_state==SYSTEM_BOOTING then
> > > cond_resched_lock() will drop the lock but won't schedule. So it'll return
> > > true but won't clear need_resched() and the caller will lock up.
> > >
> > > So if cond_resched_foo() ends up dropping the lock it _must_ call
> > > schedule() to clear need_resched().
> > >
> > > So, how about this (it needs some code comments!)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The patch works for the install test env.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > However I still have some concern on cond_resched_lock(), on an UP
> > kernel it will return 1 if schedule happen, but actually it does not
> > drop any lock, that semantic seems to be different to SMP kernel.
>
> That's OK (I think - I don't have a good track record in this thread).
>
> If the kernel is non-preemptible and UP, we want to return true from
> cond_resched_foo() if we called schedule(). Because schedule() might allow
> a different thread into the kernel which might modify the locked data.
>
> And if the kernel is preemptible and UP, we want to return true from
> cond_resched_foo() if we dropped the lock, because that internally does a
> preempt_enable().
>
> And the patch (hopefully) satisfies those requirements. Does that all
> sound solid?
Ah yes, I think the logic is solid.
cond_sched_xxx will return 1 only if any thing disruptive really
happen, either dropping a lock or enabling preempt or bh or schedule.
The patch satisfied those requirements.
Thanks
Zou Nan hai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
