Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 May 2006 02:25:44 -0400 (EDT) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Document futex PI design |
| |
On Sun, 14 May 2006, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > OK, although I'm a native speaker, my English isn't that good. Some of my > > German colleagues are even better than I. I always thought that an > > apostrophe 's' after a 's' doesn't add the 's'. Or should I say, a '\'s' > > after a 's' doesn't include the 's'! > > Yep, it's easy to mess this one up. Strunk & White keeps it simple, > with very few exceptions. Wikipedia seems to agree: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe_%28mark%29#Possessive_form_of_words_ending_in_s
OK, thanks for the link.
> > > > > +top pi waiter - The highest priority process waiting on one of the mutexes > > > > + that a specific process owns. > > > > > > top PI waiter (throughout) > > > > Does this make the document clearer to understand? I have no problem with > > it either way, I mainly want the document to be easy for people to read, > > and I tried to use capitals to stress things. But I would really like an > > outside opinion on which reads better. (yours counts as an outside > > opinion) > > Either way, just be consistent.
hmm, I'm thinking that I like the "top pi waiter". That way you know that I'm talking about the highest priority process waiting on a processes pi_list. This differentiates from PI when talking about "Priority Inheritance". Yes the "pi" in "top pi waiter" refers to priority inheritance, but it's part of a word and not PI itself.
> > > > > +There are a few differences between plist and list, the most important one > > > > +is that plist is a priority sorted link list. This means that the priorities > > > s/is/being/ > > > s/link/linked/ > > > > "being that plist is a priority sorted linked list..." > > > > "being" is fine, but I usually think of link list as a single word. > > Although you are correct in that grammically it should be linked. Again > > this isn't a matter of correctness of grammar, but the ease > > of understanding. Though, some may argue that correct grammar makes > > understanding easier. > > Knuth Vol. 1 discusses *linked* lists.
OK, linked it is.
> > > > +If the task was not the top waiter of the mutex, but it was before we > > > > +did the priority updates, that means we are deboosting/lowering the > > > > +task. In this case, the task is removed from the pi_list of the owner, > > > > +and the new top waiter is added. > > > > + > > > > +Lastly, we unlock both the pi_lock of the task, as well as the mutex's > > > > +wait_lock, and continue the loop again, this time the task is the owner > > > s/this time/but this time/ (?) > > > > How about "the next iteration will have the owner of the previous mutex as > > the task" > > How about just eliminating the run-on sentences? :)
Doh, I just love my run-on sentences. OK, I'll work on describing it with smaller sentences.
> > > > > +A check is made to see if the mutex has waiters or not, this can be the case for > > > > +architectures without CMPXCHG, or a waiter had hit the timeout or signal and > > > > +removed itself between the time the "Has Waiters" bit was checked and this > > > > +check. If there are no waiters than the mutex owner field is set to NULL, > > > > +the wait_lock is released and nothing more is needed. > > > > > > First sentence of paragraph above needs some work, but I can't tell > > > what is intended so I can't fix it. > > > > Ah, I don't like that explaination either. Basically, what I'm trying to > > say is that an architecture that doesn't have CMPXCHG will always check > > for waiters on a lock here. But for those archs that do have CMPXCHG, this > > case is still needed. One might think it's not, because the fast path > > only goes into the slow path when CMPXCHG fails. In other words, the > > mutex has waiters. But the check here is still needed, because if the > > lock only has one waiter and it woke up by signal or timeout between the > > CMPXCHG check and the grabbing of the wait_lock, the slowpath wont have > > waiters. > > Yes, I gathered that. It's just a case of run-on sentences being > confusing (at least to me). > > > Is something like the above a better description. I wrote it quick, so I > > will even explain it better when I send a patch (and spend more time on > > it) > > I think so. >
OK, I'll give this all a try.
Thanks,
-- Steve
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |