On 05/18/2012 07:26 PM, Ge Gao wrote: > Thanks for the patch. There could be one problem with the implementation. > Consider the situation: > 1. there are 10 packets in the kfifo. > 2. Read 1 packet. Then poll again. > 3. the poll will stuck at poll_wait(filp, &rb->pollq, wait) because it > needs the next store to wake it up, while in reality, it should return > immediately if there is data already in the kfifo. Agreed that is what should happen. I'm just getting my head around why it doesn't (or more specifically what is different about how we are doing it from other similar cases). > 4. It might be better to put poll inside ring buffer implementation itself > rather than industrial-buffer.c, such as providing a new method like poll > to do it. Certainly could do that, but I'm not sure how it will help. > What do you think? > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > > GE GAO > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Cameron [mailto:jic23@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 10:31 AM > To: Ge Gao > Cc: Jonathan Cameron; linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: sw_ring.c poll problem > > > > On 05/18/2012 02:08 AM, Ge Gao wrote: >> Dear Jonathan, >> I check the kfifo buffer implementation under IIO directory. > However, >> I didn't find the "pollq" is released anywhere as sw_ring does. >> Without it, how can kfifo be polled if it is used by > industrial-buffer.c? Thanks. > Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Totally manic at the day job > today tracking two delightful bugs. > > Anyhow, looks like I'd imagined we'd actually added poll support to kfifo > when it never got implemented. Should be easy enough though. > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/kfifo_buf.c b/drivers/iio/kfifo_buf.c index > 6bf9d05..e69d6ce 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/kfifo_buf.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/kfifo_buf.c > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > #include <linux/kfifo.h> > #include <linux/mutex.h> > #include <linux/iio/kfifo_buf.h> > +#include <linux/sched.h> > > struct iio_kfifo { > struct iio_buffer buffer; > @@ -35,6 +36,7 @@ static int iio_request_update_kfifo(struct iio_buffer > *r) > kfifo_free(&buf->kf); > ret = __iio_allocate_kfifo(buf, buf->buffer.bytes_per_datum, > buf->buffer.length); > + r->stufftoread = false; > error_ret: > return ret; > } > @@ -97,6 +99,10 @@ static int iio_store_to_kfifo(struct iio_buffer *r, > ret = kfifo_in(&kf->kf, data, r->bytes_per_datum); > if (ret != r->bytes_per_datum) > return -EBUSY; > + > + r->stufftoread = true; > + wake_up_interruptible(&r->pollq); > + > return 0; > } > > @@ -112,6 +118,12 @@ static int iio_read_first_n_kfifo(struct iio_buffer > *r, > n = rounddown(n, r->bytes_per_datum); > ret = kfifo_to_user(&kf->kf, buf, n, &copied); > > + if (kfifo_is_empty(&kf->kf)) > + r->stufftoread = false; > + /* verify it is still empty to avoid race */ > + if (!kfifo_is_empty(&kf->kf)) > + r->stufftoread = true; > + > return copied; > } > > .. is a totally untested patch to add poll support to it. > The little dance at the end is to avoid a write having occured between the > kfifo_is_empty and setting the flag false as that could wipe out the > existence of some data in the buffer. Given we only ever have one writer > and one reader that should work I think. > > Jonathan > >> >> Hi Ge, >> >> I realised after sending that message that I was being rather >> dismissive of your query. Got up far too early this morning (as every >> morning ;) >> >> Anyhow, to give more details. sw_ring is probably never going to make >> it out of staging, hence the move to kfifo_buf. At somepoint we need >> to work out how to do equivalent functionality of sw_ring but I've not >> had time to more than start looking into this. >> >> As you saw, poll on sw_ring is a watershead signal indicating (in >> theory and last I checked it worked) that the ring is more than half > full. >> Any read that takes the fill level below half (test code just reads >> half the size of the buffer), should allow a new passing of the >> watershead to resignal poll. It's entirely possible there is a bug in >> there though I know it is been getting a fair bit of testing with some >> other drivers so could be todo with the precise way you are reading it >> hitting some corner case? (I'm >> stretching...) >> >> Right now I'd just move over to kfifo_buf if I were you. It's much >> more 'standard' in that it's a fifo and poll indicates if there is >> anything there at all. >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Ge GAO >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" >>>> in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo >>>> info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
