[ Brian, can you line wrap your text at 72 columns? ]
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:05:05AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On 05/22/2012 08:58 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> snip
>
> >
> > Hi Brian - here's kind of what I was thinking when we were talking
> > on IRC. basically we move all the idling logic into xfsaild() to
> > keep it out of xfsaild_push(), and make sure we only idle on an
> > empty AIL when we haven't raced with a target update.
> >
> > So, I was thinking that we add a previous target variable to the
> > xfs_ail structure. Then xfsaild would become something like:
> >
> >
> > while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> >
> > spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> > __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >
> > /* barrier matches the xa_target update in xfs_ail_push() */
> > smp_rmb();
> > if (!xfs_ail_min(ailp) && ailp->xa_target == ailp->xa_prev_target) {
>
> Ok... IIUC, two things can happen here: 1.) we either detect an
> xa_target update and continue on or 2.) if an _ail_push() occurs
> any time between now and when we schedule out, it will issue the
> wakeup successfully because we've already set the task state above
> (thus avoiding the race).
Exactly.
> > FWIW, you might be able to do this without the idle wait queue
> > and just use wake_up_process() -
> >
>
> Ok... I'll look into using a wait queue once I have the basics
> working as is and put the whole thing through my reproducer.
Ah, I forgot to remove that line from the email before I sent it. I
originally thought an idle wake queue would be necessary, but then
realised it wasn't and removed it from the code I wrote
above. So, no, and idle wait queue is not necessary....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
