On 11/24/2015 06:12 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2015-11-23 13:36:06, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>
>> On 11/18/2015 07:25 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
>>> Kthreads are currently implemented as an infinite loop. Each
>>> has its own variant of checks for terminating, freezing,
>>> awakening. In many cases it is unclear to say in which state
>>> it is and sometimes it is done a wrong way.
>>>
>>> The plan is to convert kthreads into kthread_worker or workqueues
>>> API. It allows to split the functionality into separate operations.
>>> It helps to make a better structure. Also it defines a clean state
>>> where no locks are taken, IRQs blocked, the kthread might sleep
>>> or even be safely migrated.
>>>
>>> The kthread worker API is useful when we want to have a dedicated
>>> single thread for the work. It helps to make sure that it is
>>> available when needed. Also it allows a better control, e.g.
>>> define a scheduling priority.
>>>
>>> This patch converts kipmi kthread into the kthread worker API because
>>> it modifies the scheduling priority. The change is quite straightforward.
>> I think this is correct. That code was hard to get right, but I don't
>> see where any
>> logic is actually changed.
> I believe that it was hard to make it working.
>
>
>> This also doesn't really look any simpler (you end up with more LOC than
>> you did before :) ),
>> though it will make things more consistent and reduce errors and that's
>> a good thing.
> I have just realized that the original code actually looks racy. For
> example, it does:
>
> __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> schedule();
>
> without rechecking the state in between. There might already be a new
> message and it might miss the wake_up_process(). Similar problem is
> with the schedule_timeout_interruptible(100); I mean:
>
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
>
>
> ipmi_thread()
> spin_lock_irqsave();
> smi_result = smi_event_handler();
> spin_unlock_irqrestore();
>
> [...]
> else if (smi_result == SI_SM_IDLE)
> /* true */
> if (atomic_read(need_watch)) {
> /* true */
>
> sender()
> spin_lock_irqsave()
> check_start_timer_thread()
> wake_up_process()
>
> /*
> * NOPE because kthread
> * is not sleeping
> */
>
> schedule_timeout_interruptible(100);
>
> /*
> * We sleep 100 jiffies but
> * there is a pending message.
> */
Yes, I knew the code was racy, but this is a performance optimization and
it wasn't that important to get it perfect. The thread wouldn't actually
wait 100 jiffies, it would just be run by timer interrupts for that time.
>
> This is not a problem with the kthread worker API because
>
> mod_delayed_kthread_work(smi_info->worker,
> &smi_info->work, 0);
>
> would queue the work to be done immediately and
>
> queue_delayed_kthread_work(smi_info->worker,
> &smi_info->work, 100);
>
> would do nothing in this case.
And indeed this is a lot better.
>
>> My only comment is I would like the worker function named ipmi_worker,
>> not ipmi_func.
> You probably want it because the original name was ipmi_thread. But
> it might cause confusion with new_smi->worker. The function gets
> assigned to work->func, see struct kthread_work. Therefore I think that
> _func suffix makes more sense.
My problem with _func is that it's way too generic. Is this a function
that handled IPMI messages? Message done handling? I'm not enamored
with my name, but I want something that gives a better indication of
what the function does. ipmi_kthread_worker_func() would be fine with me.
Thanks,
-corey
>> Reviewed-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks a lot for review,
> Petr
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>