Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:03:17 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: Linux 3.19-rc3 |
| |
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:43:13AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote: > It might make the most sense to cook up something new, stealing some of the > closure code but using standard the wait_queue_head_t - having a single standard > waitlist type is definitely a good thing, and unfortunately I don't think it'd > be a good idea to convert closures to wait_queue_head_t mainly because of the > memory usage. > > I will note that one thing that has been immensely useful with closures is the > ability to pass a closure around - think of it as a "wait object" - to some code > that may end up waiting on something, but you don't want to itself sleep, and > then the caller can closure_sync() or continue_at() or whatever it wants (or use > the same closure for waiting on multiple things, e.g. where we wait on writing > the two new btree nodes after a split). > > Think of it a souped up completion.
Yeah I got that aspect. I'm still trying to get my head around how the wait_event bit would be a natural match though ;-)
Let me stew a bit on that.
That said, the RT people want a simple waitqueue, one that has deterministic behaviour. This is only possibly by removing some of the more obscure waitqueue features and thus also results in a slimmer structure.
| |