On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 12:59:58AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Albert Chu <[email protected]> wrote: > > @@ -525,8 +525,8 @@ static void cc_poller_send(osm_congestion_control_t > > *p_cc, > > status = osm_vendor_send(p_cc->bind_handle, p_madw, TRUE); > > if (status == IB_SUCCESS) { > > cl_atomic_inc(&p_cc->outstanding_mads_on_wire); > > - if (p_cc->outstanding_mads_on_wire > > > - (int32_t)p_opt->cc_max_outstanding_mads) > > + while (p_cc->outstanding_mads_on_wire > > > + (int32_t)p_opt->cc_max_outstanding_mads) > > cl_event_wait_on(&p_cc->sig_mads_on_wire_continue, > > EVENT_NO_TIMEOUT, > > TRUE); > > I've never looked at the opensm code -- I'm just guessing based on this patch.
The event objects have a hidden built in state that ensures a wake up is not lost, so long as only one thread ever calls wait_on. If it is possible two threads could be sleeping on the same event then the system is unfixably-broken-by-design, since on thread will eat the internal event and the other will thus miss it, in a racy way. I've had to clean this kind of a mess up in other code bases, and now always discourage this kind of interface. Use POSIX condition variables, they have cleaner locking semantics and are easier to audit for correctness. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
