On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 05:18:53PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> Let swake_up() to return whether any of the waiters is waked up. One use
> case of it would be:
>
> if (swait_active(wq)) {
> swake_up(wq);
> // do something when waiter is waked up
> waked_up++;
> }
The word is 'woken', and no that doesn't work. All it says is that there
was a waiter, not that you were to one to wake it. Another concurrent
wakeup might have done so.
>
> Logically it's possible that when reaching swake_up() the wait queue is
> not active any more, and here doing something like waked_up++ would be
> inaccurate. To correct it, we need an atomic version of it.
>
> With this patch, we can simply re-write it into:
>
> if (swake_up(wq)) {
> // do something when waiter is waked up
> waked_up++;
> }
>
> After all we are checking swait_active() inside swake_up() too.
We're not in fact; you've been staring at old code; see commit:
35a2897c2a30 ("sched/wait: Remove the lockless swait_active() check in
swake_up*()")
Also, you're changing the interface relative to the regular wait
interface. The two should be similar wherever possible.
