Re: [for-416 PATCH 1/2] bcache: Fix, improve efficiency of closure_sync()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jens & Kent,

On 01/05/2018 08:05 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/30/17 4:09 PM, Michael Lyle wrote:
>> +void __closure_sync(struct closure *cl)
>> +{
>> +	struct closure_syncer s = { .task = current };
>>  
>> +	cl->s = &s;
>> +	continue_at(cl, closure_sync_fn, NULL);
>> +
>> +	while (1) {
>> +		__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>> +		smp_mb(); /* Ensure task state set before load of done flag */
> 
> That's why we have set_current_state().
> 

I wrote the comment in question-- it seemed like to me set_current_state
and a store w/ barrier, but I was nervous since I didn't write the code
that there might be another dependency/reason.

Kent-- is there any reason to not just set_current_state(...)?

Thanks,

Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux