Home Home > GIT Browse
summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDavidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>2017-09-13 13:08:18 -0700
committerPaolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>2017-09-15 16:57:10 +0200
commit8cd641e3c7cbf86c7cbd2a17a160dd137d86c860 (patch)
tree23ff1da546c321e16956cbc2456fc55fe7931008
parent3a8b0677fc6180a467e26cc32ce6b0c09a32f9bb (diff)
sched/wait: Add swq_has_sleeper()
Which is the equivalent of what we have in regular waitqueues. I'm not crazy about the name, but this also helps us get both apis closer -- which iirc comes originally from the -net folks. We also duplicate the comments for the lockless swait_active(), from wait.h. Future users will make use of this interface. Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
-rw-r--r--include/linux/swait.h58
1 files changed, 56 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/include/linux/swait.h b/include/linux/swait.h
index 4a4e180d0a35..73e97a08d3d0 100644
--- a/include/linux/swait.h
+++ b/include/linux/swait.h
@@ -79,9 +79,63 @@ extern void __init_swait_queue_head(struct swait_queue_head *q, const char *name
DECLARE_SWAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(name)
#endif
-static inline int swait_active(struct swait_queue_head *q)
+/**
+ * swait_active -- locklessly test for waiters on the queue
+ * @wq: the waitqueue to test for waiters
+ *
+ * returns true if the wait list is not empty
+ *
+ * NOTE: this function is lockless and requires care, incorrect usage _will_
+ * lead to sporadic and non-obvious failure.
+ *
+ * NOTE2: this function has the same above implications as regular waitqueues.
+ *
+ * Use either while holding swait_queue_head::lock or when used for wakeups
+ * with an extra smp_mb() like:
+ *
+ * CPU0 - waker CPU1 - waiter
+ *
+ * for (;;) {
+ * @cond = true; prepare_to_swait(&wq_head, &wait, state);
+ * smp_mb(); // smp_mb() from set_current_state()
+ * if (swait_active(wq_head)) if (@cond)
+ * wake_up(wq_head); break;
+ * schedule();
+ * }
+ * finish_swait(&wq_head, &wait);
+ *
+ * Because without the explicit smp_mb() it's possible for the
+ * swait_active() load to get hoisted over the @cond store such that we'll
+ * observe an empty wait list while the waiter might not observe @cond.
+ * This, in turn, can trigger missing wakeups.
+ *
+ * Also note that this 'optimization' trades a spin_lock() for an smp_mb(),
+ * which (when the lock is uncontended) are of roughly equal cost.
+ */
+static inline int swait_active(struct swait_queue_head *wq)
+{
+ return !list_empty(&wq->task_list);
+}
+
+/**
+ * swq_has_sleeper - check if there are any waiting processes
+ * @wq: the waitqueue to test for waiters
+ *
+ * Returns true if @wq has waiting processes
+ *
+ * Please refer to the comment for swait_active.
+ */
+static inline bool swq_has_sleeper(struct swait_queue_head *wq)
{
- return !list_empty(&q->task_list);
+ /*
+ * We need to be sure we are in sync with the list_add()
+ * modifications to the wait queue (task_list).
+ *
+ * This memory barrier should be paired with one on the
+ * waiting side.
+ */
+ smp_mb();
+ return swait_active(wq);
}
extern void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q);