lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: compaction: support triggering of proactive compaction by user
From
Date
On 6/17/21 6:05 PM, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
> The wait_event/freezable_timeout() documentation says that:
> * Returns:
> * 0 if the @condition evaluated to %false after the @timeout elapsed,
> or
> * 1 if the @condition evaluated to %true after the @timeout elapsed,
> * or the remaining jiffies (at least 1) if the @condition evaluated
> * to %true before the @timeout elapsed.
>
> which means the condition must be evaluated to true or timeout should be
> elapsed for the function wait_event_freezable_timeout() to return.
>
> Please check the macro implementation of __wait_event, where it will be
> in for(;;) till the condition is evaluated to true or timeout happens.
> #define __wait_event_freezable_timeout(wq_head, condition, timeout)
>
> ___wait_event(wq_head, ___wait_cond_timeout(condition),
>
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 0, timeout,
>
> __ret = freezable_schedule_timeout(__ret))
>
> Thus the plain wakeup of kcompactd don't do the proactive compact work.
> And so we should identify its wakeup for proactive work with a separate
> flag.

OK, you're right, I forgot that the macro has the for loop to guard against
spurious wakeups.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-17 18:19    [W:0.066 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site