Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock

[Dmitry Adamushko]

2009/1/23 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 01/23, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>>
>> 2009/1/23 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On 01/23, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In short, wq->lock is a sync. mechanism in this case. The scheme is as follows:
>> >>
>> >> our side:
>> >>
>> >> [ finish_wait() ]
>> >>
>> >> lock(wq->lock);
>> >
>> > But we can skip lock(wq->lock), afaics.
>> >
>> > Without rmb(), test_bit() can be re-ordered with list_empty_careful()
>> > in finish_wait() and even with __set_task_state(TASK_RUNNING).
>>
>> But taking into account the constraints of this special case, namely
>> (1), we can't skip lock(wq->lock).
>>
>> (1) "the next contender is us"
>>
>> In this particular situation, we are only interested in the case when
>> we were woken up by __wake_up_bit().
>
> Yes,
>
>> that means we are _on_ the 'wq' list when we do finish_wait() -> we do
>> take the 'wq->lock'.
>
> Hmm. No?
>
> We are doing exclusive wait, and we use autoremove_wake_function().
> If we were woken, we are removed from ->task_list.

Argh, right, somehow I've made wrong assumptions on the wake-up part :-/


>
> Oleg.
>

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/