lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] sbitmap: don't consume nr for inactive waitqueue to avoid lost wakeups
From
On 12/1/22 12:21?AM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>
>
> on 12/1/2022 12:54 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>> If we decremented queue without waiters, we should not decremente freed
>> bits number "nr", or all "nr" could be consumed in a empty queue and no
>> wakeup will be called.
>> Currently, for case "wait_cnt > 0", "nr" will not be decremented if we
>> decremented queue without watiers and retry is returned to avoid lost
>> wakeups. However for case "wait_cnt == 0", "nr" will be decremented
>> unconditionally and maybe decremented to zero. Although retry is
>> returned by active state of queue, it's not actually executed for "nr"
>> is zero.
>>
>> Fix this by only decrementing "nr" for active queue when "wait_cnt ==
>> 0". After this fix, "nr" will always be non-zero when we decremented
>> inactive queue for case "wait_cnt == 0", so the need to retry could
>> be returned by "nr" and active state of waitqueue returned for the same
>> purpose is not needed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> lib/sbitmap.c | 13 ++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/sbitmap.c b/lib/sbitmap.c
>> index 7280ae8ca88c..e40759bcf821 100644
>> --- a/lib/sbitmap.c
>> +++ b/lib/sbitmap.c
>> @@ -604,7 +604,6 @@ static bool __sbq_wake_up(struct sbitmap_queue *sbq, int *nr)
>> struct sbq_wait_state *ws;
>> unsigned int wake_batch;
>> int wait_cnt, cur, sub;
>> - bool ret;
>>
>> if (*nr <= 0)
>> return false;
>> @@ -632,15 +631,15 @@ static bool __sbq_wake_up(struct sbitmap_queue *sbq, int *nr)
>> if (wait_cnt > 0)
>> return !waitqueue_active(&ws->wait);
>>
>> - *nr -= sub;
>> -
>> /*
>> * When wait_cnt == 0, we have to be particularly careful as we are
>> * responsible to reset wait_cnt regardless whether we've actually
>> - * woken up anybody. But in case we didn't wakeup anybody, we still
>> - * need to retry.
>> + * woken up anybody. But in case we didn't wakeup anybody, we should
>> + * not consume nr and need to retry to avoid lost wakeups.
>> */
>> - ret = !waitqueue_active(&ws->wait);
> There is a warnning reported by checkpatch.pl which is
> "WARNING:waitqueue_active without comment" but I don't know why.

Most likely because waitqueue_active() could be racy, so a comment is
warranted on why it's safe rather than using wq_has_sleeper().

--
Jens Axboe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-02 01:59    [W:0.246 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site