On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:36:19PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:09:48AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> >> When the gp_kthread wakes up from the wait event, it returns 0 if the wake
> >> up is
> >> due to the condition having been met. This commit checks this return value
> >> for a spurious wake up before calling rcu_gp_init().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.pr...@gmail.com>
> >
> > How does this added check help? I don't see that it does. If the flag
> > is set, we want to wake up. If we get a spurious wakeup, but then the
> > flag gets set before we actually wake up, we still want to wake up.
>
> So I took a look at the docs again, and using the return value is the
> recommended way to check for spurious wakeups.
>
> The condition in wait_event_interruptible() is checked when the task
> is woken up (either due to stray signals or explicitly) and it returns
> true if condition evaluates to true.
>
> In the current scenario, if we get a spurious wakeup, we take the
> costly path of checking this condition again (with a barrier and lock)
> before going back to wait.
>
> The scenario of getting an actual wakeup after getting a spurious
> wakeup exists even today, this is the window after detecting a
> spurious wakeup and before going back to wait. I am not sure if using
> the return value enlarges that window as we are going back to sleep
> immediately.
>
> Thoughts?
If the flag is set, why should we care whether or not the wakeup was
spurious? If the flag is not set, why should we care whether or not
wait_event_interruptible() thought that the wakeup was not spurious?
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
