Re: [PATCHv4 17/17] writeback: lessen sync_supers wakeup count

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Mon May 31 2010 - 04:38:53 EST


On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:25:52AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 01:44 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > if (supers_dirty)
> > > bdi_arm_supers_timer();
> > > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > schedule();
>
> > But we cannot do the above, because again the timer might go off
> > before we set current state. We'd lose the wakeup and never wake
> > up again.
> >
> > Putting it inside set_current_state() should be OK. I suppose.
>
> Hmm, but it looks like we cannot do that either. If we do
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (supers_dirty)
> bdi_arm_supers_timer();
> schedule();
>
> and the kernel is preemptive, is it possible that we get preempted
> before we run 'bdi_arm_supers_timer()', but after we do
> 'set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)'. And we will never wake up if
> the timer armed in mark_sb_dirty() went off.
>
> So it looks like this is the way to go:
>
> /*
> * Disable preemption for a while to make sure we are not
> * preempted before the timer is armed.
> */
> preempt_disable();
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (supers_dirty)
> bdi_arm_supers_timer();
> preempt_enable();
> schedule();

This should not be required because preempt is transparent to these
task sleep/schedule APIs.

The preempt event will not clear TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, and so the timer
wakeup will set it to TASK_RUNNING (whether or not it has called
schedule() yet and whether or not it is currently preempted).


--
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/