2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Generic waiting primitives.
|
|
|
|
*
|
2012-12-06 17:39:54 +08:00
|
|
|
* (C) 2004 Nadia Yvette Chambers, Oracle
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/init.h>
|
2011-05-24 02:51:41 +08:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/export.h>
|
2017-02-03 02:15:33 +08:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/sched/signal.h>
|
2017-02-09 01:51:35 +08:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/sched/debug.h>
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/mm.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/wait.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/hash.h>
|
2014-10-31 18:57:30 +08:00
|
|
|
#include <linux/kthread.h>
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void __init_waitqueue_head(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, const char *name, struct lock_class_key *key)
|
2006-07-10 19:45:32 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_lock_init(&wq_head->lock);
|
|
|
|
lockdep_set_class_and_name(&wq_head->lock, key, name);
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq_head->head);
|
2006-07-10 19:45:32 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2006-07-03 15:25:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2009-08-10 19:33:05 +08:00
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__init_waitqueue_head);
|
2006-07-03 15:25:07 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void add_wait_queue(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
wq_entry->flags &= ~WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
|
|
|
__add_wait_queue_entry_tail(wq_head, wq_entry);
|
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(add_wait_queue);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void add_wait_queue_exclusive(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
wq_entry->flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
|
|
|
__add_wait_queue_entry_tail(wq_head, wq_entry);
|
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(add_wait_queue_exclusive);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void remove_wait_queue(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
|
|
|
__remove_wait_queue(wq_head, wq_entry);
|
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(remove_wait_queue);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Scan threshold to break wait queue walk.
|
|
|
|
* This allows a waker to take a break from holding the
|
|
|
|
* wait queue lock during the wait queue walk.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#define WAITQUEUE_WALK_BREAK_CNT 64
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* The core wakeup function. Non-exclusive wakeups (nr_exclusive == 0) just
|
|
|
|
* wake everything up. If it's an exclusive wakeup (nr_exclusive == small +ve
|
|
|
|
* number) then we wake all the non-exclusive tasks and one exclusive task.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* There are circumstances in which we can try to wake a task which has already
|
|
|
|
* started to run but is not in state TASK_RUNNING. try_to_wake_up() returns
|
|
|
|
* zero in this (rare) case, and we handle it by continuing to scan the queue.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
static int __wake_up_common(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode,
|
|
|
|
int nr_exclusive, int wake_flags, void *key,
|
|
|
|
wait_queue_entry_t *bookmark)
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-06-20 18:06:13 +08:00
|
|
|
wait_queue_entry_t *curr, *next;
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
int cnt = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (bookmark && (bookmark->flags & WQ_FLAG_BOOKMARK)) {
|
|
|
|
curr = list_next_entry(bookmark, entry);
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
list_del(&bookmark->entry);
|
|
|
|
bookmark->flags = 0;
|
|
|
|
} else
|
|
|
|
curr = list_first_entry(&wq_head->head, wait_queue_entry_t, entry);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (&curr->entry == &wq_head->head)
|
|
|
|
return nr_exclusive;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
list_for_each_entry_safe_from(curr, next, &wq_head->head, entry) {
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
unsigned flags = curr->flags;
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (flags & WQ_FLAG_BOOKMARK)
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret = curr->func(curr, mode, wake_flags, key);
|
Minor page waitqueue cleanups
Tim Chen and Kan Liang have been battling a customer load that shows
extremely long page wakeup lists. The cause seems to be constant NUMA
migration of a hot page that is shared across a lot of threads, but the
actual root cause for the exact behavior has not been found.
Tim has a patch that batches the wait list traversal at wakeup time, so
that we at least don't get long uninterruptible cases where we traverse
and wake up thousands of processes and get nasty latency spikes. That
is likely 4.14 material, but we're still discussing the page waitqueue
specific parts of it.
In the meantime, I've tried to look at making the page wait queues less
expensive, and failing miserably. If you have thousands of threads
waiting for the same page, it will be painful. We'll need to try to
figure out the NUMA balancing issue some day, in addition to avoiding
the excessive spinlock hold times.
That said, having tried to rewrite the page wait queues, I can at least
fix up some of the braindamage in the current situation. In particular:
(a) we don't want to continue walking the page wait list if the bit
we're waiting for already got set again (which seems to be one of
the patterns of the bad load). That makes no progress and just
causes pointless cache pollution chasing the pointers.
(b) we don't want to put the non-locking waiters always on the front of
the queue, and the locking waiters always on the back. Not only is
that unfair, it means that we wake up thousands of reading threads
that will just end up being blocked by the writer later anyway.
Also add a comment about the layout of 'struct wait_page_key' - there is
an external user of it in the cachefiles code that means that it has to
match the layout of 'struct wait_bit_key' in the two first members. It
so happens to match, because 'struct page *' and 'unsigned long *' end
up having the same values simply because the page flags are the first
member in struct page.
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2017-08-28 04:55:12 +08:00
|
|
|
if (ret < 0)
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
if (ret && (flags & WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE) && !--nr_exclusive)
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
break;
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (bookmark && (++cnt > WAITQUEUE_WALK_BREAK_CNT) &&
|
|
|
|
(&next->entry != &wq_head->head)) {
|
|
|
|
bookmark->flags = WQ_FLAG_BOOKMARK;
|
|
|
|
list_add_tail(&bookmark->entry, &next->entry);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nr_exclusive;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static void __wake_up_common_lock(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode,
|
|
|
|
int nr_exclusive, int wake_flags, void *key)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
wait_queue_entry_t bookmark;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bookmark.flags = 0;
|
|
|
|
bookmark.private = NULL;
|
|
|
|
bookmark.func = NULL;
|
|
|
|
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bookmark.entry);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
|
|
|
nr_exclusive = __wake_up_common(wq_head, mode, nr_exclusive, wake_flags, key, &bookmark);
|
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while (bookmark.flags & WQ_FLAG_BOOKMARK) {
|
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
|
|
|
nr_exclusive = __wake_up_common(wq_head, mode, nr_exclusive,
|
|
|
|
wake_flags, key, &bookmark);
|
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* __wake_up - wake up threads blocked on a waitqueue.
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
* @wq_head: the waitqueue
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
* @mode: which threads
|
|
|
|
* @nr_exclusive: how many wake-one or wake-many threads to wake up
|
|
|
|
* @key: is directly passed to the wakeup function
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier before
|
|
|
|
* changing the task state if and only if any tasks are woken up.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void __wake_up(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode,
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
int nr_exclusive, void *key)
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
__wake_up_common_lock(wq_head, mode, nr_exclusive, 0, key);
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__wake_up);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Same as __wake_up but called with the spinlock in wait_queue_head_t held.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void __wake_up_locked(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode, int nr)
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
__wake_up_common(wq_head, mode, nr, 0, NULL, NULL);
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_locked);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void __wake_up_locked_key(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode, void *key)
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
__wake_up_common(wq_head, mode, 1, 0, key, NULL);
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_locked_key);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-26 00:13:55 +08:00
|
|
|
void __wake_up_locked_key_bookmark(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head,
|
|
|
|
unsigned int mode, void *key, wait_queue_entry_t *bookmark)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
__wake_up_common(wq_head, mode, 1, 0, key, bookmark);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_locked_key_bookmark);
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* __wake_up_sync_key - wake up threads blocked on a waitqueue.
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
* @wq_head: the waitqueue
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
* @mode: which threads
|
|
|
|
* @nr_exclusive: how many wake-one or wake-many threads to wake up
|
|
|
|
* @key: opaque value to be passed to wakeup targets
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* The sync wakeup differs that the waker knows that it will schedule
|
|
|
|
* away soon, so while the target thread will be woken up, it will not
|
|
|
|
* be migrated to another CPU - ie. the two threads are 'synchronized'
|
|
|
|
* with each other. This can prevent needless bouncing between CPUs.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* On UP it can prevent extra preemption.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier before
|
|
|
|
* changing the task state if and only if any tasks are woken up.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void __wake_up_sync_key(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode,
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
int nr_exclusive, void *key)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int wake_flags = 1; /* XXX WF_SYNC */
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
if (unlikely(!wq_head))
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (unlikely(nr_exclusive != 1))
|
|
|
|
wake_flags = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-26 00:13:54 +08:00
|
|
|
__wake_up_common_lock(wq_head, mode, nr_exclusive, wake_flags, key);
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_sync_key);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* __wake_up_sync - see __wake_up_sync_key()
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void __wake_up_sync(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode, int nr_exclusive)
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
__wake_up_sync_key(wq_head, mode, nr_exclusive, NULL);
|
2013-10-04 23:24:35 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_sync); /* For internal use only */
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Note: we use "set_current_state()" _after_ the wait-queue add,
|
|
|
|
* because we need a memory barrier there on SMP, so that any
|
|
|
|
* wake-function that tests for the wait-queue being active
|
|
|
|
* will be guaranteed to see waitqueue addition _or_ subsequent
|
|
|
|
* tests in this thread will see the wakeup having taken place.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* The spin_unlock() itself is semi-permeable and only protects
|
|
|
|
* one way (it only protects stuff inside the critical region and
|
|
|
|
* stops them from bleeding out - it would still allow subsequent
|
2007-05-09 14:57:56 +08:00
|
|
|
* loads to move into the critical region).
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
*/
|
2008-02-08 20:19:53 +08:00
|
|
|
void
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
prepare_to_wait(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, int state)
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
wq_entry->flags &= ~WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
if (list_empty(&wq_entry->entry))
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
__add_wait_queue(wq_head, wq_entry);
|
2008-10-16 13:01:38 +08:00
|
|
|
set_current_state(state);
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(prepare_to_wait);
|
|
|
|
|
2008-02-08 20:19:53 +08:00
|
|
|
void
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
prepare_to_wait_exclusive(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, int state)
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
wq_entry->flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
if (list_empty(&wq_entry->entry))
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
__add_wait_queue_entry_tail(wq_head, wq_entry);
|
2008-10-16 13:01:38 +08:00
|
|
|
set_current_state(state);
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(prepare_to_wait_exclusive);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
void init_wait_entry(struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, int flags)
|
2016-09-06 22:00:55 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
wq_entry->flags = flags;
|
|
|
|
wq_entry->private = current;
|
|
|
|
wq_entry->func = autoremove_wake_function;
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq_entry->entry);
|
2016-09-06 22:00:55 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(init_wait_entry);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
long prepare_to_wait_event(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, int state)
|
2013-10-08 00:18:24 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
2016-09-09 00:48:15 +08:00
|
|
|
long ret = 0;
|
2013-10-08 00:18:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
2016-09-09 00:48:15 +08:00
|
|
|
if (unlikely(signal_pending_state(state, current))) {
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Exclusive waiter must not fail if it was selected by wakeup,
|
|
|
|
* it should "consume" the condition we were waiting for.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* The caller will recheck the condition and return success if
|
|
|
|
* we were already woken up, we can not miss the event because
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
* wakeup locks/unlocks the same wq_head->lock.
|
2016-09-09 00:48:15 +08:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* But we need to ensure that set-condition + wakeup after that
|
|
|
|
* can't see us, it should wake up another exclusive waiter if
|
|
|
|
* we fail.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
list_del_init(&wq_entry->entry);
|
2016-09-09 00:48:15 +08:00
|
|
|
ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
if (list_empty(&wq_entry->entry)) {
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
if (wq_entry->flags & WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE)
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
__add_wait_queue_entry_tail(wq_head, wq_entry);
|
2016-09-09 00:48:15 +08:00
|
|
|
else
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
__add_wait_queue(wq_head, wq_entry);
|
2016-09-09 00:48:15 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
set_current_state(state);
|
2013-10-08 00:18:24 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
2013-10-08 00:18:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2016-09-09 00:48:15 +08:00
|
|
|
return ret;
|
2013-10-08 00:18:24 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(prepare_to_wait_event);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-08 07:33:14 +08:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Note! These two wait functions are entered with the
|
|
|
|
* wait-queue lock held (and interrupts off in the _irq
|
|
|
|
* case), so there is no race with testing the wakeup
|
|
|
|
* condition in the caller before they add the wait
|
|
|
|
* entry to the wake queue.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-06-20 18:06:13 +08:00
|
|
|
int do_wait_intr(wait_queue_head_t *wq, wait_queue_entry_t *wait)
|
2017-03-08 07:33:14 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
if (likely(list_empty(&wait->entry)))
|
2017-06-20 18:06:13 +08:00
|
|
|
__add_wait_queue_entry_tail(wq, wait);
|
2017-03-08 07:33:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
|
|
|
|
if (signal_pending(current))
|
|
|
|
return -ERESTARTSYS;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spin_unlock(&wq->lock);
|
|
|
|
schedule();
|
|
|
|
spin_lock(&wq->lock);
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(do_wait_intr);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-20 18:06:13 +08:00
|
|
|
int do_wait_intr_irq(wait_queue_head_t *wq, wait_queue_entry_t *wait)
|
2017-03-08 07:33:14 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
if (likely(list_empty(&wait->entry)))
|
2017-06-20 18:06:13 +08:00
|
|
|
__add_wait_queue_entry_tail(wq, wait);
|
2017-03-08 07:33:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
|
|
|
|
if (signal_pending(current))
|
|
|
|
return -ERESTARTSYS;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irq(&wq->lock);
|
|
|
|
schedule();
|
|
|
|
spin_lock_irq(&wq->lock);
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(do_wait_intr_irq);
|
|
|
|
|
2010-10-27 05:17:25 +08:00
|
|
|
/**
|
2009-02-05 07:12:14 +08:00
|
|
|
* finish_wait - clean up after waiting in a queue
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
* @wq_head: waitqueue waited on
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
* @wq_entry: wait descriptor
|
2009-02-05 07:12:14 +08:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Sets current thread back to running state and removes
|
|
|
|
* the wait descriptor from the given waitqueue if still
|
|
|
|
* queued.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
void finish_wait(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
unsigned long flags;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* We can check for list emptiness outside the lock
|
|
|
|
* IFF:
|
|
|
|
* - we use the "careful" check that verifies both
|
|
|
|
* the next and prev pointers, so that there cannot
|
|
|
|
* be any half-pending updates in progress on other
|
|
|
|
* CPU's that we haven't seen yet (and that might
|
|
|
|
* still change the stack area.
|
|
|
|
* and
|
|
|
|
* - all other users take the lock (ie we can only
|
|
|
|
* have _one_ other CPU that looks at or modifies
|
|
|
|
* the list).
|
|
|
|
*/
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
if (!list_empty_careful(&wq_entry->entry)) {
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
list_del_init(&wq_entry->entry);
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(finish_wait);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
int autoremove_wake_function(struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
int ret = default_wake_function(wq_entry, mode, sync, key);
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (ret)
|
sched/wait: Disambiguate wq_entry->task_list and wq_head->task_list naming
So I've noticed a number of instances where it was not obvious from the
code whether ->task_list was for a wait-queue head or a wait-queue entry.
Furthermore, there's a number of wait-queue users where the lists are
not for 'tasks' but other entities (poll tables, etc.), in which case
the 'task_list' name is actively confusing.
To clear this all up, name the wait-queue head and entry list structure
fields unambiguously:
struct wait_queue_head::task_list => ::head
struct wait_queue_entry::task_list => ::entry
For example, this code:
rqw->wait.task_list.next != &wait->task_list
... is was pretty unclear (to me) what it's doing, while now it's written this way:
rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry
... which makes it pretty clear that we are iterating a list until we see the head.
Other examples are:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->task_list, task_list) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.task_list, task_list) {
... where it's unclear (to me) what we are iterating, and during review it's
hard to tell whether it's trying to walk a wait-queue entry (which would be
a bug), while now it's written as:
list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, next, &x->head, entry) {
list_for_each_entry(wq, &fence->wait.head, entry) {
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2017-06-20 18:06:46 +08:00
|
|
|
list_del_init(&wq_entry->entry);
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
return ret;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(autoremove_wake_function);
|
|
|
|
|
2014-10-31 18:57:30 +08:00
|
|
|
static inline bool is_kthread_should_stop(void)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD) && kthread_should_stop();
|
|
|
|
}
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wake_func);
|
|
|
|
*
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
* add_wait_queue(&wq_head, &wait);
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
* for (;;) {
|
|
|
|
* if (condition)
|
|
|
|
* break;
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* p->state = mode; condition = true;
|
|
|
|
* smp_mb(); // A smp_wmb(); // C
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
* if (!wq_entry->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN) wq_entry->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
* schedule() try_to_wake_up();
|
|
|
|
* p->state = TASK_RUNNING; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
* wq_entry->flags &= ~WQ_FLAG_WOKEN; condition = true;
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
* smp_mb() // B smp_wmb(); // C
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
* wq_entry->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
* }
|
2017-03-05 18:10:18 +08:00
|
|
|
* remove_wait_queue(&wq_head, &wait);
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
long wait_woken(struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, unsigned mode, long timeout)
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
set_current_state(mode); /* A */
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* The above implies an smp_mb(), which matches with the smp_wmb() from
|
|
|
|
* woken_wake_function() such that if we observe WQ_FLAG_WOKEN we must
|
|
|
|
* also observe all state before the wakeup.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
if (!(wq_entry->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN) && !is_kthread_should_stop())
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
|
|
|
|
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* The below implies an smp_mb(), it too pairs with the smp_wmb() from
|
|
|
|
* woken_wake_function() such that we must either observe the wait
|
|
|
|
* condition being true _OR_ WQ_FLAG_WOKEN such that we will not miss
|
|
|
|
* an event.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
smp_store_mb(wq_entry->flags, wq_entry->flags & ~WQ_FLAG_WOKEN); /* B */
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return timeout;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(wait_woken);
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
int woken_wake_function(struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Although this function is called under waitqueue lock, LOCK
|
|
|
|
* doesn't imply write barrier and the users expects write
|
|
|
|
* barrier semantics on wakeup functions. The following
|
|
|
|
* smp_wmb() is equivalent to smp_wmb() in try_to_wake_up()
|
2015-05-12 16:51:55 +08:00
|
|
|
* and is paired with smp_store_mb() in wait_woken().
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
smp_wmb(); /* C */
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
wq_entry->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2017-03-05 17:33:16 +08:00
|
|
|
return default_wake_function(wq_entry, mode, sync, key);
|
2014-09-24 16:18:47 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(woken_wake_function);
|