[PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Nicholas Mc Guire]

Fix for imprecise/wrong statements on context in which wait_for_completion*()
can be called, updated notes on "going out of scope" problems and some 
language fixups.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
---

This hopfully address all of the issues Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> noted
in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/18/690.

Patch is against 3.19.0 (linux-stable)


completions - wait for completion handling
==========================================

This document was originally written based on 3.18.0 (linux-next)

Introduction:
-------------

If you have one or more threads of execution that must wait for some process
to have reached a point or a specific state, completions can provide a race
free solution to this problem. Semantically they are somewhat like a
pthread_barriers and have similar use-cases.

Completions are a code synchronization mechanism which are preferable to any
misuse of locks. Any time you think of using yield() or some quirky
msleep(1); loop to allow something else to proceed, you probably want to
look into using one of the wait_for_completion*() calls instead. The
advantage of using completions is clear intent of the code, but also more
efficient code as both threads can continue until the result is actually
needed.

Completions are built on top of the generic event infrastructure in Linux,
with the event reduced to a simple flag appropriately called "done" in
struct completion, that tells the waiting threads of execution if they
can continue safely.

As completions are scheduling related, the code is found in
kernel/sched/completion.c - for details on completion design and
implementation see completions-design.txt


Usage:
------

There are three parts to using completions, the initialization of the
struct completion, the waiting part through a call to one of the variants of
wait_for_completion() and the signaling side through a call to complete()
or complete_all(). Further there are some helper functions for checking the
state of completions.

To use completions one needs to include <linux/completion.h> and
create a variable of type struct completion. The structure used for
handling of completions is:

	struct completion {
		unsigned int done;
		wait_queue_head_t wait;
	};

providing the wait queue to place tasks on for waiting and the flag for
indicating the state of affairs.

Completions should be named to convey the intent of the waiter. A good
example is:

	wait_for_completion(&early_console_added);

	complete(&early_console_added);

Good naming (as always) helps code readability.


Initializing completions:
-------------------------

Initialization of dynamically allocated completions, often embedded in
other structures, is done with:

	void init_completion(&done);

Initialization is accomplished by initializing the wait queue and setting
the default state to "not available", that is, "done" is set to 0.

The re-initialization function, reinit_completion(), simply resets the
done element to "not available", thus again to 0, without touching the
wait queue. Calling init_completion() on the same completion object is
most likely a bug as it re-initializes the queue to an empty queue and
enqueued tasks could get "lost" - use reinit_completion() in that case.

For static declaration and initialization, macros are available. These are:

	static DECLARE_COMPLETION(setup_done)

used for static declarations in file scope. Within functions the static
initialization should always use:

	DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(setup_done)

suitable for automatic/local variables on the stack and will make lockdep
happy. Note also that one needs to make *sure* the completion passed to
work threads remains in-scope, and no references remain to on-stack data
when the initiating function returns.

Using on-stack completions for code that calls any of the _timeout or
_interruptible/_killable variants is not advisable as they will require
additional synchronization to prevent the on-stack completion object in
the timeout/signal cases from going out of scope. Consider using dynamically
allocated completions when intending to use the _interruptible/_killable
or _timeout variants of wait_for_completion().


Waiting for completions:
------------------------

For a thread of execution to wait for some concurrent work to finish, it
calls wait_for_completion() on the initialized completion structure.
A typical usage scenario is:

	structure completion setup_done;
	init_completion(&setup_done);
	initialize_work(...,&setup_done,...)

	/* run non-dependent code */              /* do setup */

	wait_for_completion(&setup_done);         complete(setup_done)

This is not implying any temporal order on wait_for_completion() and the
call to complete() - if the call to complete() happened before the call
to wait_for_completion() then the waiting side simply will continue
immediately as all dependencies are satisfied if not it will block until
completion is signaled by complete().

Note that wait_for_completion() is calling spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq
so it can only be called safely when you know that interrupts are enabled.
Calling it from hard-irq or irqs-off atomic contexts will result in hard
to detect spurious enabling of interrupts.

wait_for_completion():

	void wait_for_completion(struct completion *done):

The default behavior is to wait without a timeout and mark the task as
uninterruptible. wait_for_completion() and its variants are only safe
in process context (as they can sleep) but not in atomic context,
interrupt context, with disabled irqs. or preemption is disabled - see also
try_wait_for_completion() below for handling completion in atomic/interrupt
context.

As all variants of wait_for_completion() can (obviously) block for a long
time, you probably don't want to call this with held mutexes.


Variants available:
-------------------

The below variants all return status and this status should be checked in
most(/all) cases - in cases where the status is deliberately not checked you
probably want to make a note explaining this (e.g. see
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c:__cpu_up()).

A common problem that occurs is to have unclean assignment of return types,
so care should be taken with assigning return-values to variables of proper
type. Checking for the specific meaning of return values also has been found
to be quite inaccurate e.g. constructs like
if (!wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(...)) would execute the same
code path for successful completion and for the interrupted case - which is
probably not what you want.

	int wait_for_completion_interruptible(struct completion *done)

This function marks the task TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received
while waiting it will return -ERESTARTSYS and 0 otherwise.

	unsigned long wait_for_completion_timeout(struct completion *done,
		unsigned long timeout)

The task is marked as TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and will wait at most 'timeout'
(in jiffies). If timeout occurs it returns 0 else the remaining time in
jiffies (but at least 1). Timeouts are preferably passed by msecs_to_jiffies()
or usecs_to_jiffies(). If the returned timeout value is deliberately ignored
a comment should probably explain why (e.g. see drivers/mfd/wm8350-core.c
wm8350_read_auxadc())

	long wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
		struct completion *done, unsigned long timeout)

This function passes a timeout in jiffies and marking the task as
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received it will return -ERESTARTSYS, 0 if
completion timed out and the remaining time in jiffies if completion occurred.

Further variants include _killable which passes TASK_KILLABLE as the
designated tasks state and will return -ERESTARTSYS if interrupted or
else 0 if completion was achieved as well as a _timeout variant.

	long wait_for_completion_killable(struct completion *done)
	long wait_for_completion_killable_timeout(struct completion *done,
		unsigned long timeout)

The _io variants wait_for_completion_io() behave the same as the non-_io
variants, except for accounting waiting time as waiting on IO, which has
an impact on how the task is accounted in scheduling stats.

	void wait_for_completion_io(struct completion *done)
	unsigned long wait_for_completion_io_timeout(struct completion *done
		unsigned long timeout)


Signaling completions:
----------------------

A thread that wants to signal that the conditions for continuation have been
achieved calls complete() to signal exactly one of the waiters that it can
continue.

	void complete(struct completion *done)

or calls complete_all() to signal all current and future waiters.

	void complete_all(struct completion *done)

The signaling will work as expected even if completions are signaled before
a thread starts waiting. This is achieved by the waiter "consuming"
(decrementing) the done element of struct completion. Waiting threads
wakeup order is the same in which they were enqueued (FIFO order).

If complete() is called multiple times then this will allow for that number
of waiters to continue - each call to complete() will simply increment the
done element. Calling complete_all() multiple times is a bug though. Both
complete() and complete_all() can be called in hard-irq/atomic context safely.

There only can be one thread calling complete() or complete_all() on a
particular struct completion at any time - serialized through the wait
queue spinlock. Any such concurrent calls to complete() or complete_all()
probably are a design bug.

Signaling completion from hard-irq context is fine as it will appropriately
lock with spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore and it will never sleep.


try_wait_for_completion()/completion_done():
--------------------------------------------

The try_wait_for_completion() function will not put the thread on the wait
queue but rather returns false if it would need to enqueue (block) the thread,
else it consumes any posted completions and returns true.

	bool try_wait_for_completion(struct completion *done)

Finally to check state of a completion without changing it in any way is
provided by completion_done() returning false if there is any posted
completion that was not yet consumed by waiters implying that there are
waiters and true otherwise;

	bool completion_done(struct completion *done)

Both try_wait_for_completion() and completion_done() are safe to be called in
hard-irq or atomic context.

 Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt |   99 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt b/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt
index f77651e..fc263c1 100644
--- a/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt
+++ b/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt
@@ -11,11 +11,11 @@ to have reached a point or a specific state, completions can provide a race
 free solution to this problem. Semantically they are somewhat like a
 pthread_barriers and have similar use-cases.
 
-Completions are a code synchronization mechanism that is preferable to any
+Completions are a code synchronization mechanism which are preferable to any
 misuse of locks. Any time you think of using yield() or some quirky
 msleep(1); loop to allow something else to proceed, you probably want to
 look into using one of the wait_for_completion*() calls instead. The
-advantage of using completions is clear intent of the code but also more
+advantage of using completions is clear intent of the code, but also more
 efficient code as both threads can continue until the result is actually
 needed.
 
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ with the event reduced to a simple flag appropriately called "done" in
 struct completion, that tells the waiting threads of execution if they
 can continue safely.
 
-As completions are scheduling related the code is found in
+As completions are scheduling related, the code is found in
 kernel/sched/completion.c - for details on completion design and
 implementation see completions-design.txt
 
@@ -32,9 +32,9 @@ implementation see completions-design.txt
 Usage:
 ------
 
-There are three parts to the using completions, the initialization of the
+There are three parts to using completions, the initialization of the
 struct completion, the waiting part through a call to one of the variants of
-wait_for_completion() and the signaling side through a call to complete(),
+wait_for_completion() and the signaling side through a call to complete()
 or complete_all(). Further there are some helper functions for checking the
 state of completions.
 
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ handling of completions is:
 providing the wait queue to place tasks on for waiting and the flag for
 indicating the state of affairs.
 
-Completions should be named to convey the intent of the waiter.  A good
+Completions should be named to convey the intent of the waiter. A good
 example is:
 
 	wait_for_completion(&early_console_added);
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ the default state to "not available", that is, "done" is set to 0.
 
 The re-initialization function, reinit_completion(), simply resets the
 done element to "not available", thus again to 0, without touching the
-wait queue. Calling init_completion() on the same completions object is
+wait queue. Calling init_completion() on the same completion object is
 most likely a bug as it re-initializes the queue to an empty queue and
 enqueued tasks could get "lost" - use reinit_completion() in that case.
 
@@ -87,10 +87,17 @@ initialization should always use:
 	DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(setup_done)
 
 suitable for automatic/local variables on the stack and will make lockdep
-happy. Note also that one needs to making *sure* the completion passt to
+happy. Note also that one needs to make *sure* the completion passed to
 work threads remains in-scope, and no references remain to on-stack data
 when the initiating function returns.
 
+Using on-stack completions for code that calls any of the _timeout or
+_interruptible/_killable variants is not advisable as they will require
+additional synchronization to prevent the on-stack completion object in
+the timeout/signal cases from going out of scope. Consider using dynamically
+allocated completions when intending to use the _interruptible/_killable
+or _timeout variants of wait_for_completion().
+
 
 Waiting for completions:
 ------------------------
@@ -101,21 +108,22 @@ A typical usage scenario is:
 
 	structure completion setup_done;
 	init_completion(&setup_done);
-	initialze_work(...,&setup_done,...)
+	initialize_work(...,&setup_done,...)
 
 	/* run non-dependent code */              /* do setup */
 
-	wait_for_completion(&seupt_done);         complete(setup_done)
+	wait_for_completion(&setup_done);         complete(setup_done)
 
-This is not implying any temporal order of wait_for_completion() and the
+This is not implying any temporal order on wait_for_completion() and the
 call to complete() - if the call to complete() happened before the call
 to wait_for_completion() then the waiting side simply will continue
-immediately as all dependencies are satisfied.
+immediately as all dependencies are satisfied if not it will block until
+completion is signaled by complete().
 
 Note that wait_for_completion() is calling spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq
 so it can only be called safely when you know that interrupts are enabled.
-Calling it from hard-irq context will result in hard to detect spurious
-enabling of interrupts.
+Calling it from hard-irq or irqs-off atomic contexts will result in hard
+to detect spurious enabling of interrupts.
 
 wait_for_completion():
 
@@ -123,10 +131,13 @@ wait_for_completion():
 
 The default behavior is to wait without a timeout and mark the task as
 uninterruptible. wait_for_completion() and its variants are only safe
-in soft-interrupt or process context but not in hard-irq context.
+in process context (as they can sleep) but not in atomic context,
+interrupt context, with disabled irqs. or preemption is disabled - see also
+try_wait_for_completion() below for handling completion in atomic/interrupt
+context.
+
 As all variants of wait_for_completion() can (obviously) block for a long
-time, you probably don't want to call this with held locks - see also
-try_wait_for_completion() below.
+time, you probably don't want to call this with held mutexes.
 
 
 Variants available:
@@ -141,20 +152,20 @@ A common problem that occurs is to have unclean assignment of return types,
 so care should be taken with assigning return-values to variables of proper
 type. Checking for the specific meaning of return values also has been found
 to be quite inaccurate e.g. constructs like
-if(!wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(...)) would execute the same
+if (!wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(...)) would execute the same
 code path for successful completion and for the interrupted case - which is
 probably not what you want.
 
 	int wait_for_completion_interruptible(struct completion *done)
 
-marking the task TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received while waiting.
-It will return -ERESTARTSYS and 0 otherwise.
+This function marks the task TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received
+while waiting it will return -ERESTARTSYS and 0 otherwise.
 
 	unsigned long wait_for_completion_timeout(struct completion *done,
 		unsigned long timeout)
 
-The task is marked as TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and will wait at most timeout
-(in jiffies). If timeout occurs it return 0 else the remaining time in
+The task is marked as TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and will wait at most 'timeout'
+(in jiffies). If timeout occurs it returns 0 else the remaining time in
 jiffies (but at least 1). Timeouts are preferably passed by msecs_to_jiffies()
 or usecs_to_jiffies(). If the returned timeout value is deliberately ignored
 a comment should probably explain why (e.g. see drivers/mfd/wm8350-core.c
@@ -163,21 +174,21 @@ wm8350_read_auxadc())
 	long wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
 		struct completion *done, unsigned long timeout)
 
-passing a timeout in jiffies and marking the task as TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a
-signal was received it will return -ERESTARTSYS, 0 if completion timed-out and
-the remaining time in jiffies if completion occurred.
+This function passes a timeout in jiffies and marking the task as
+TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received it will return -ERESTARTSYS, 0 if
+completion timed out and the remaining time in jiffies if completion occurred.
 
 Further variants include _killable which passes TASK_KILLABLE as the
-designated tasks state and will return a -ERESTARTSYS if interrupted or
-else 0 if completions was achieved as well as a _timeout variant.
+designated tasks state and will return -ERESTARTSYS if interrupted or
+else 0 if completion was achieved as well as a _timeout variant.
 
 	long wait_for_completion_killable(struct completion *done)
 	long wait_for_completion_killable_timeout(struct completion *done,
 		unsigned long timeout)
 
-The _io variants wait_for_completion_io behave the same as the non-_io
+The _io variants wait_for_completion_io() behave the same as the non-_io
 variants, except for accounting waiting time as waiting on IO, which has
-an impact on how scheduling is calculated.
+an impact on how the task is accounted in scheduling stats.
 
 	void wait_for_completion_io(struct completion *done)
 	unsigned long wait_for_completion_io_timeout(struct completion *done
@@ -187,13 +198,13 @@ an impact on how scheduling is calculated.
 Signaling completions:
 ----------------------
 
-A thread of execution that wants to signal that the conditions for
-continuation have been achieved calls complete() to signal exactly one
-of the waiters that it can continue.
+A thread that wants to signal that the conditions for continuation have been
+achieved calls complete() to signal exactly one of the waiters that it can
+continue.
 
 	void complete(struct completion *done)
 
-or calls complete_all to signal all current and future waiters.
+or calls complete_all() to signal all current and future waiters.
 
 	void complete_all(struct completion *done)
 
@@ -205,32 +216,32 @@ wakeup order is the same in which they were enqueued (FIFO order).
 If complete() is called multiple times then this will allow for that number
 of waiters to continue - each call to complete() will simply increment the
 done element. Calling complete_all() multiple times is a bug though. Both
-complete() and complete_all() can be called in hard-irq context safely.
+complete() and complete_all() can be called in hard-irq/atomic context safely.
 
 There only can be one thread calling complete() or complete_all() on a
-particular struct completions at any time - serialized through the wait
+particular struct completion at any time - serialized through the wait
 queue spinlock. Any such concurrent calls to complete() or complete_all()
 probably are a design bug.
 
 Signaling completion from hard-irq context is fine as it will appropriately
-lock with spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore.
+lock with spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore and it will never sleep.
 
 
 try_wait_for_completion()/completion_done():
 --------------------------------------------
 
-The try_wait_for_completion will not put the thread on the wait queue but
-rather returns false if it would need to enqueue (block) the thread, else it
-consumes any posted completions and returns true.
+The try_wait_for_completion() function will not put the thread on the wait
+queue but rather returns false if it would need to enqueue (block) the thread,
+else it consumes any posted completions and returns true.
 
-     bool try_wait_for_completion(struct completion *done)
+	bool try_wait_for_completion(struct completion *done)
 
-Finally to check state of a completions without changing it in any way is
-provided by completion_done() returning false if there are any posted
+Finally to check state of a completion without changing it in any way is
+provided by completion_done() returning false if there is any posted
 completion that was not yet consumed by waiters implying that there are
 waiters and true otherwise;
 
-     bool completion_done(struct completion *done)
+	bool completion_done(struct completion *done)
 
 Both try_wait_for_completion() and completion_done() are safe to be called in
-hard-irq context.
+hard-irq or atomic context.
--
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:28:48 -0500
Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:

> This hopfully address all of the issues Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> noted
> in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/18/690.

This looks OK to me, modulo some small English quibbles.  Ingo, does this
satisfy your concerns?

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:28:48 -0500
> Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> 
> > This hopfully address all of the issues Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> noted
> > in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/18/690.
> 
> This looks OK to me, modulo some small English quibbles.  Ingo, does this
> satisfy your concerns?

I wasn't Cc:-ed to the patch and it wasn't Cc:-ed to lkml either :-(

(It would be very useful if documentation update patches were Cc:-ed 
to the maintainers of the affected subsystem, to double check things 
and so.)

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> I wasn't Cc:-ed to the patch and it wasn't Cc:-ed to lkml either :-(

/me hands mingo a strong cup of tea...

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142445364429042&w=2

Re: [PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > I wasn't Cc:-ed to the patch and it wasn't Cc:-ed to lkml either :-(
> 
> /me hands mingo a strong cup of tea...
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142445364429042&w=2

Hm, then it somehow got spam-filtered out :-/

Could someone forward me the actual patch please?

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Nicholas Mc Guire]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > I wasn't Cc:-ed to the patch and it wasn't Cc:-ed to lkml either :-(
> 
> /me hands mingo a strong cup of tea...
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142445364429042&w=2
>
strange: I sent it to

To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
    Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>,
    Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
    linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>

No idea how that happened. Did the mail violate some 
size-limit or content restriction ?

thx!
hofrat 

Re: [PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:28:48 -0500
> Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> 
> > This hopfully address all of the issues Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> noted
> > in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/18/690.
> 
> This looks OK to me, modulo some small English quibbles.  Ingo, does this
> satisfy your concerns?

Mind sending me the final version, modified by you?

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Ingo Molnar]

* Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > I wasn't Cc:-ed to the patch and it wasn't Cc:-ed to lkml either :-(
> > 
> > /me hands mingo a strong cup of tea...
> > 
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142445364429042&w=2
> >
> strange: I sent it to
> 
> To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
>     Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>,
>     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
>     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
> 
> No idea how that happened. Did the mail violate some 
> size-limit or content restriction ?

I don't think so, since it got into the marc.info archive - so the 
problem is probably on my side.

In any case it would be nice if I could see Jonathan's modified 
version, so that I can read the latest and greatest.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:10:42 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> Mind sending me the final version, modified by you?

OK, this is the current version.  For completeness (so to speak) I'll send
the patches as well.

jon

completions - wait for completion handling
==========================================

This document was originally written based on 3.18.0 (linux-next)

Introduction:
-------------

If you have one or more threads of execution that must wait for some process
to have reached a point or a specific state, completions can provide a
race-free solution to this problem. Semantically they are somewhat like a
pthread_barrier and have similar use-cases.

Completions are a code synchronization mechanism which is preferable to any
misuse of locks. Any time you think of using yield() or some quirky
msleep(1) loop to allow something else to proceed, you probably want to
look into using one of the wait_for_completion*() calls instead. The
advantage of using completions is clear intent of the code, but also more
efficient code as both threads can continue until the result is actually
needed.

Completions are built on top of the generic event infrastructure in Linux,
with the event reduced to a simple flag (appropriately called "done") in
struct completion that tells the waiting threads of execution if they
can continue safely.

As completions are scheduling related, the code is found in
kernel/sched/completion.c - for details on completion design and
implementation see completions-design.txt


Usage:
------

There are three parts to using completions, the initialization of the
struct completion, the waiting part through a call to one of the variants of
wait_for_completion() and the signaling side through a call to complete()
or complete_all(). Further there are some helper functions for checking the
state of completions.

To use completions one needs to include <linux/completion.h> and
create a variable of type struct completion. The structure used for
handling of completions is:

	struct completion {
		unsigned int done;
		wait_queue_head_t wait;
	};

providing the wait queue to place tasks on for waiting and the flag for
indicating the state of affairs.

Completions should be named to convey the intent of the waiter. A good
example is:

	wait_for_completion(&early_console_added);

	complete(&early_console_added);

Good naming (as always) helps code readability.


Initializing completions:
-------------------------

Initialization of dynamically allocated completions, often embedded in
other structures, is done with:

	void init_completion(&done);

Initialization is accomplished by initializing the wait queue and setting
the default state to "not available", that is, "done" is set to 0.

The re-initialization function, reinit_completion(), simply resets the
done element to "not available", thus again to 0, without touching the
wait queue. Calling init_completion() twice on the same completion object is
most likely a bug as it re-initializes the queue to an empty queue and
enqueued tasks could get "lost" - use reinit_completion() in that case.

For static declaration and initialization, macros are available. These are:

	static DECLARE_COMPLETION(setup_done)

used for static declarations in file scope. Within functions the static
initialization should always use:

	DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(setup_done)

suitable for automatic/local variables on the stack and will make lockdep
happy. Note also that one needs to make *sure* the completion passed to
work threads remains in-scope, and no references remain to on-stack data
when the initiating function returns.

Using on-stack completions for code that calls any of the _timeout or
_interruptible/_killable variants is not advisable as they will require
additional synchronization to prevent the on-stack completion object in
the timeout/signal cases from going out of scope. Consider using dynamically
allocated completions when intending to use the _interruptible/_killable
or _timeout variants of wait_for_completion().


Waiting for completions:
------------------------

For a thread of execution to wait for some concurrent work to finish, it
calls wait_for_completion() on the initialized completion structure.
A typical usage scenario is:

	struct completion setup_done;
	init_completion(&setup_done);
	initialize_work(...,&setup_done,...)

	/* run non-dependent code */              /* do setup */

	wait_for_completion(&setup_done);         complete(setup_done)

This is not implying any temporal order on wait_for_completion() and the
call to complete() - if the call to complete() happened before the call
to wait_for_completion() then the waiting side simply will continue
immediately as all dependencies are satisfied if not it will block until
completion is signaled by complete().

Note that wait_for_completion() is calling spin_lock_irq()/spin_unlock_irq(),
so it can only be called safely when you know that interrupts are enabled.
Calling it from hard-irq or irqs-off atomic contexts will result in
hard-to-detect spurious enabling of interrupts.

wait_for_completion():

	void wait_for_completion(struct completion *done):

The default behavior is to wait without a timeout and to mark the task as
uninterruptible. wait_for_completion() and its variants are only safe
in process context (as they can sleep) but not in atomic context,
interrupt context, with disabled irqs. or preemption is disabled - see also
try_wait_for_completion() below for handling completion in atomic/interrupt
context.

As all variants of wait_for_completion() can (obviously) block for a long
time, you probably don't want to call this with held mutexes.


Variants available:
-------------------

The below variants all return status and this status should be checked in
most(/all) cases - in cases where the status is deliberately not checked you
probably want to make a note explaining this (e.g. see
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c:__cpu_up()).

A common problem that occurs is to have unclean assignment of return types,
so care should be taken with assigning return-values to variables of proper
type. Checking for the specific meaning of return values also has been found
to be quite inaccurate e.g. constructs like
if (!wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(...)) would execute the same
code path for successful completion and for the interrupted case - which is
probably not what you want.

	int wait_for_completion_interruptible(struct completion *done)

This function marks the task TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received
while waiting it will return -ERESTARTSYS; 0 otherwise.

	unsigned long wait_for_completion_timeout(struct completion *done,
		unsigned long timeout)

The task is marked as TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and will wait at most 'timeout'
(in jiffies). If timeout occurs it returns 0 else the remaining time in
jiffies (but at least 1). Timeouts are preferably calculated with
msecs_to_jiffies() or usecs_to_jiffies(). If the returned timeout value is
deliberately ignored a comment should probably explain why (e.g. see
drivers/mfd/wm8350-core.c wm8350_read_auxadc())

	long wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
		struct completion *done, unsigned long timeout)

This function passes a timeout in jiffies and marks the task as
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received it will return -ERESTARTSYS;
otherwise it returns 0 if the completion timed out or the remaining time in
jiffies if completion occurred.

Further variants include _killable which uses TASK_KILLABLE as the
designated tasks state and will return -ERESTARTSYS if it is interrupted or
else 0 if completion was achieved.  There is a _timeout variant as well:

	long wait_for_completion_killable(struct completion *done)
	long wait_for_completion_killable_timeout(struct completion *done,
		unsigned long timeout)

The _io variants wait_for_completion_io() behave the same as the non-_io
variants, except for accounting waiting time as waiting on IO, which has
an impact on how the task is accounted in scheduling stats.

	void wait_for_completion_io(struct completion *done)
	unsigned long wait_for_completion_io_timeout(struct completion *done
		unsigned long timeout)


Signaling completions:
----------------------

A thread that wants to signal that the conditions for continuation have been
achieved calls complete() to signal exactly one of the waiters that it can
continue.

	void complete(struct completion *done)

or calls complete_all() to signal all current and future waiters.

	void complete_all(struct completion *done)

The signaling will work as expected even if completions are signaled before
a thread starts waiting. This is achieved by the waiter "consuming"
(decrementing) the done element of struct completion. Waiting threads
wakeup order is the same in which they were enqueued (FIFO order).

If complete() is called multiple times then this will allow for that number
of waiters to continue - each call to complete() will simply increment the
done element. Calling complete_all() multiple times is a bug though. Both
complete() and complete_all() can be called in hard-irq/atomic context safely.

There only can be one thread calling complete() or complete_all() on a
particular struct completion at any time - serialized through the wait
queue spinlock. Any such concurrent calls to complete() or complete_all()
probably are a design bug.

Signaling completion from hard-irq context is fine as it will appropriately
lock with spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore and it will never sleep.


try_wait_for_completion()/completion_done():
--------------------------------------------

The try_wait_for_completion() function will not put the thread on the wait
queue but rather returns false if it would need to enqueue (block) the thread,
else it consumes one posted completion and returns true.

	bool try_wait_for_completion(struct completion *done)

Finally, to check the state of a completion without changing it in any way, 
call completion_done(), which returns false if there are no posted
completions that were not yet consumed by waiters (implying that there are
waiters) and true otherwise;

	bool completion_done(struct completion *done)

Both try_wait_for_completion() and completion_done() are safe to be called in
hard-irq or atomic context.

[PATCH 1/2] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Jonathan Corbet]

>From 486036741940254bb677810e30bdb5aab3191c5c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:28:48 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

Fix for imprecise/wrong statements on context in which wait_for_completion*()
can be called, updated notes on "going out of scope" problems and some
language fixups.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
---
 Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt | 99 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt b/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt
index f77651eca31e..083d9c931b8d 100644
--- a/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt
+++ b/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt
@@ -11,11 +11,11 @@ to have reached a point or a specific state, completions can provide a race
 free solution to this problem. Semantically they are somewhat like a
 pthread_barriers and have similar use-cases.
 
-Completions are a code synchronization mechanism that is preferable to any
+Completions are a code synchronization mechanism which are preferable to any
 misuse of locks. Any time you think of using yield() or some quirky
 msleep(1); loop to allow something else to proceed, you probably want to
 look into using one of the wait_for_completion*() calls instead. The
-advantage of using completions is clear intent of the code but also more
+advantage of using completions is clear intent of the code, but also more
 efficient code as both threads can continue until the result is actually
 needed.
 
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ with the event reduced to a simple flag appropriately called "done" in
 struct completion, that tells the waiting threads of execution if they
 can continue safely.
 
-As completions are scheduling related the code is found in
+As completions are scheduling related, the code is found in
 kernel/sched/completion.c - for details on completion design and
 implementation see completions-design.txt
 
@@ -32,9 +32,9 @@ implementation see completions-design.txt
 Usage:
 ------
 
-There are three parts to the using completions, the initialization of the
+There are three parts to using completions, the initialization of the
 struct completion, the waiting part through a call to one of the variants of
-wait_for_completion() and the signaling side through a call to complete(),
+wait_for_completion() and the signaling side through a call to complete()
 or complete_all(). Further there are some helper functions for checking the
 state of completions.
 
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ handling of completions is:
 providing the wait queue to place tasks on for waiting and the flag for
 indicating the state of affairs.
 
-Completions should be named to convey the intent of the waiter.  A good
+Completions should be named to convey the intent of the waiter. A good
 example is:
 
 	wait_for_completion(&early_console_added);
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ the default state to "not available", that is, "done" is set to 0.
 
 The re-initialization function, reinit_completion(), simply resets the
 done element to "not available", thus again to 0, without touching the
-wait queue. Calling init_completion() on the same completions object is
+wait queue. Calling init_completion() on the same completion object is
 most likely a bug as it re-initializes the queue to an empty queue and
 enqueued tasks could get "lost" - use reinit_completion() in that case.
 
@@ -87,10 +87,17 @@ initialization should always use:
 	DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(setup_done)
 
 suitable for automatic/local variables on the stack and will make lockdep
-happy. Note also that one needs to making *sure* the completion passt to
+happy. Note also that one needs to make *sure* the completion passed to
 work threads remains in-scope, and no references remain to on-stack data
 when the initiating function returns.
 
+Using on-stack completions for code that calls any of the _timeout or
+_interruptible/_killable variants is not advisable as they will require
+additional synchronization to prevent the on-stack completion object in
+the timeout/signal cases from going out of scope. Consider using dynamically
+allocated completions when intending to use the _interruptible/_killable
+or _timeout variants of wait_for_completion().
+
 
 Waiting for completions:
 ------------------------
@@ -101,21 +108,22 @@ A typical usage scenario is:
 
 	structure completion setup_done;
 	init_completion(&setup_done);
-	initialze_work(...,&setup_done,...)
+	initialize_work(...,&setup_done,...)
 
 	/* run non-dependent code */              /* do setup */
 
-	wait_for_completion(&seupt_done);         complete(setup_done)
+	wait_for_completion(&setup_done);         complete(setup_done)
 
-This is not implying any temporal order of wait_for_completion() and the
+This is not implying any temporal order on wait_for_completion() and the
 call to complete() - if the call to complete() happened before the call
 to wait_for_completion() then the waiting side simply will continue
-immediately as all dependencies are satisfied.
+immediately as all dependencies are satisfied if not it will block until
+completion is signaled by complete().
 
 Note that wait_for_completion() is calling spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq
 so it can only be called safely when you know that interrupts are enabled.
-Calling it from hard-irq context will result in hard to detect spurious
-enabling of interrupts.
+Calling it from hard-irq or irqs-off atomic contexts will result in hard
+to detect spurious enabling of interrupts.
 
 wait_for_completion():
 
@@ -123,10 +131,13 @@ wait_for_completion():
 
 The default behavior is to wait without a timeout and mark the task as
 uninterruptible. wait_for_completion() and its variants are only safe
-in soft-interrupt or process context but not in hard-irq context.
+in process context (as they can sleep) but not in atomic context,
+interrupt context, with disabled irqs. or preemption is disabled - see also
+try_wait_for_completion() below for handling completion in atomic/interrupt
+context.
+
 As all variants of wait_for_completion() can (obviously) block for a long
-time, you probably don't want to call this with held locks - see also
-try_wait_for_completion() below.
+time, you probably don't want to call this with held mutexes.
 
 
 Variants available:
@@ -141,20 +152,20 @@ A common problem that occurs is to have unclean assignment of return types,
 so care should be taken with assigning return-values to variables of proper
 type. Checking for the specific meaning of return values also has been found
 to be quite inaccurate e.g. constructs like
-if(!wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(...)) would execute the same
+if (!wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(...)) would execute the same
 code path for successful completion and for the interrupted case - which is
 probably not what you want.
 
 	int wait_for_completion_interruptible(struct completion *done)
 
-marking the task TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received while waiting.
-It will return -ERESTARTSYS and 0 otherwise.
+This function marks the task TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received
+while waiting it will return -ERESTARTSYS and 0 otherwise.
 
 	unsigned long wait_for_completion_timeout(struct completion *done,
 		unsigned long timeout)
 
-The task is marked as TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and will wait at most timeout
-(in jiffies). If timeout occurs it return 0 else the remaining time in
+The task is marked as TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and will wait at most 'timeout'
+(in jiffies). If timeout occurs it returns 0 else the remaining time in
 jiffies (but at least 1). Timeouts are preferably passed by msecs_to_jiffies()
 or usecs_to_jiffies(). If the returned timeout value is deliberately ignored
 a comment should probably explain why (e.g. see drivers/mfd/wm8350-core.c
@@ -163,21 +174,21 @@ wm8350_read_auxadc())
 	long wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
 		struct completion *done, unsigned long timeout)
 
-passing a timeout in jiffies and marking the task as TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a
-signal was received it will return -ERESTARTSYS, 0 if completion timed-out and
-the remaining time in jiffies if completion occurred.
+This function passes a timeout in jiffies and marking the task as
+TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received it will return -ERESTARTSYS, 0 if
+completion timed out and the remaining time in jiffies if completion occurred.
 
 Further variants include _killable which passes TASK_KILLABLE as the
-designated tasks state and will return a -ERESTARTSYS if interrupted or
-else 0 if completions was achieved as well as a _timeout variant.
+designated tasks state and will return -ERESTARTSYS if interrupted or
+else 0 if completion was achieved as well as a _timeout variant.
 
 	long wait_for_completion_killable(struct completion *done)
 	long wait_for_completion_killable_timeout(struct completion *done,
 		unsigned long timeout)
 
-The _io variants wait_for_completion_io behave the same as the non-_io
+The _io variants wait_for_completion_io() behave the same as the non-_io
 variants, except for accounting waiting time as waiting on IO, which has
-an impact on how scheduling is calculated.
+an impact on how the task is accounted in scheduling stats.
 
 	void wait_for_completion_io(struct completion *done)
 	unsigned long wait_for_completion_io_timeout(struct completion *done
@@ -187,13 +198,13 @@ an impact on how scheduling is calculated.
 Signaling completions:
 ----------------------
 
-A thread of execution that wants to signal that the conditions for
-continuation have been achieved calls complete() to signal exactly one
-of the waiters that it can continue.
+A thread that wants to signal that the conditions for continuation have been
+achieved calls complete() to signal exactly one of the waiters that it can
+continue.
 
 	void complete(struct completion *done)
 
-or calls complete_all to signal all current and future waiters.
+or calls complete_all() to signal all current and future waiters.
 
 	void complete_all(struct completion *done)
 
@@ -205,32 +216,32 @@ wakeup order is the same in which they were enqueued (FIFO order).
 If complete() is called multiple times then this will allow for that number
 of waiters to continue - each call to complete() will simply increment the
 done element. Calling complete_all() multiple times is a bug though. Both
-complete() and complete_all() can be called in hard-irq context safely.
+complete() and complete_all() can be called in hard-irq/atomic context safely.
 
 There only can be one thread calling complete() or complete_all() on a
-particular struct completions at any time - serialized through the wait
+particular struct completion at any time - serialized through the wait
 queue spinlock. Any such concurrent calls to complete() or complete_all()
 probably are a design bug.
 
 Signaling completion from hard-irq context is fine as it will appropriately
-lock with spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore.
+lock with spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore and it will never sleep.
 
 
 try_wait_for_completion()/completion_done():
 --------------------------------------------
 
-The try_wait_for_completion will not put the thread on the wait queue but
-rather returns false if it would need to enqueue (block) the thread, else it
-consumes any posted completions and returns true.
+The try_wait_for_completion() function will not put the thread on the wait
+queue but rather returns false if it would need to enqueue (block) the thread,
+else it consumes any posted completions and returns true.
 
-     bool try_wait_for_completion(struct completion *done)
+	bool try_wait_for_completion(struct completion *done)
 
-Finally to check state of a completions without changing it in any way is
-provided by completion_done() returning false if there are any posted
+Finally to check state of a completion without changing it in any way is
+provided by completion_done() returning false if there is any posted
 completion that was not yet consumed by waiters implying that there are
 waiters and true otherwise;
 
-     bool completion_done(struct completion *done)
+	bool completion_done(struct completion *done)
 
 Both try_wait_for_completion() and completion_done() are safe to be called in
-hard-irq context.
+hard-irq or atomic context.
-- 
2.1.0

[PATCH 2/2] docs/completion.txt: Various tweaks and corrections

[Jonathan Corbet]

>From 5fbce97c75f0ac713af4ac8563058e8a023f07b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:16:35 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] docs/completion.txt: Various tweaks and corrections

Mostly language improvements to the new completions.txt document, but there
is also a semantic correction in the description of completion_done() at
the very end.

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
---
 Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt | 59 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt b/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt
index 083d9c931b8d..2622bc7a188b 100644
--- a/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt
+++ b/Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt
@@ -7,21 +7,21 @@ Introduction:
 -------------
 
 If you have one or more threads of execution that must wait for some process
-to have reached a point or a specific state, completions can provide a race
-free solution to this problem. Semantically they are somewhat like a
-pthread_barriers and have similar use-cases.
+to have reached a point or a specific state, completions can provide a
+race-free solution to this problem. Semantically they are somewhat like a
+pthread_barrier and have similar use-cases.
 
-Completions are a code synchronization mechanism which are preferable to any
+Completions are a code synchronization mechanism which is preferable to any
 misuse of locks. Any time you think of using yield() or some quirky
-msleep(1); loop to allow something else to proceed, you probably want to
+msleep(1) loop to allow something else to proceed, you probably want to
 look into using one of the wait_for_completion*() calls instead. The
 advantage of using completions is clear intent of the code, but also more
 efficient code as both threads can continue until the result is actually
 needed.
 
 Completions are built on top of the generic event infrastructure in Linux,
-with the event reduced to a simple flag appropriately called "done" in
-struct completion, that tells the waiting threads of execution if they
+with the event reduced to a simple flag (appropriately called "done") in
+struct completion that tells the waiting threads of execution if they
 can continue safely.
 
 As completions are scheduling related, the code is found in
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ the default state to "not available", that is, "done" is set to 0.
 
 The re-initialization function, reinit_completion(), simply resets the
 done element to "not available", thus again to 0, without touching the
-wait queue. Calling init_completion() on the same completion object is
+wait queue. Calling init_completion() twice on the same completion object is
 most likely a bug as it re-initializes the queue to an empty queue and
 enqueued tasks could get "lost" - use reinit_completion() in that case.
 
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ For a thread of execution to wait for some concurrent work to finish, it
 calls wait_for_completion() on the initialized completion structure.
 A typical usage scenario is:
 
-	structure completion setup_done;
+	struct completion setup_done;
 	init_completion(&setup_done);
 	initialize_work(...,&setup_done,...)
 
@@ -120,16 +120,16 @@ to wait_for_completion() then the waiting side simply will continue
 immediately as all dependencies are satisfied if not it will block until
 completion is signaled by complete().
 
-Note that wait_for_completion() is calling spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq
+Note that wait_for_completion() is calling spin_lock_irq()/spin_unlock_irq(),
 so it can only be called safely when you know that interrupts are enabled.
-Calling it from hard-irq or irqs-off atomic contexts will result in hard
-to detect spurious enabling of interrupts.
+Calling it from hard-irq or irqs-off atomic contexts will result in
+hard-to-detect spurious enabling of interrupts.
 
 wait_for_completion():
 
 	void wait_for_completion(struct completion *done):
 
-The default behavior is to wait without a timeout and mark the task as
+The default behavior is to wait without a timeout and to mark the task as
 uninterruptible. wait_for_completion() and its variants are only safe
 in process context (as they can sleep) but not in atomic context,
 interrupt context, with disabled irqs. or preemption is disabled - see also
@@ -159,28 +159,29 @@ probably not what you want.
 	int wait_for_completion_interruptible(struct completion *done)
 
 This function marks the task TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received
-while waiting it will return -ERESTARTSYS and 0 otherwise.
+while waiting it will return -ERESTARTSYS; 0 otherwise.
 
 	unsigned long wait_for_completion_timeout(struct completion *done,
 		unsigned long timeout)
 
 The task is marked as TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE and will wait at most 'timeout'
 (in jiffies). If timeout occurs it returns 0 else the remaining time in
-jiffies (but at least 1). Timeouts are preferably passed by msecs_to_jiffies()
-or usecs_to_jiffies(). If the returned timeout value is deliberately ignored
-a comment should probably explain why (e.g. see drivers/mfd/wm8350-core.c
-wm8350_read_auxadc())
+jiffies (but at least 1). Timeouts are preferably calculated with
+msecs_to_jiffies() or usecs_to_jiffies(). If the returned timeout value is
+deliberately ignored a comment should probably explain why (e.g. see
+drivers/mfd/wm8350-core.c wm8350_read_auxadc())
 
 	long wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
 		struct completion *done, unsigned long timeout)
 
-This function passes a timeout in jiffies and marking the task as
-TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received it will return -ERESTARTSYS, 0 if
-completion timed out and the remaining time in jiffies if completion occurred.
+This function passes a timeout in jiffies and marks the task as
+TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If a signal was received it will return -ERESTARTSYS;
+otherwise it returns 0 if the completion timed out or the remaining time in
+jiffies if completion occurred.
 
-Further variants include _killable which passes TASK_KILLABLE as the
-designated tasks state and will return -ERESTARTSYS if interrupted or
-else 0 if completion was achieved as well as a _timeout variant.
+Further variants include _killable which uses TASK_KILLABLE as the
+designated tasks state and will return -ERESTARTSYS if it is interrupted or
+else 0 if completion was achieved.  There is a _timeout variant as well:
 
 	long wait_for_completion_killable(struct completion *done)
 	long wait_for_completion_killable_timeout(struct completion *done,
@@ -232,14 +233,14 @@ try_wait_for_completion()/completion_done():
 
 The try_wait_for_completion() function will not put the thread on the wait
 queue but rather returns false if it would need to enqueue (block) the thread,
-else it consumes any posted completions and returns true.
+else it consumes one posted completion and returns true.
 
 	bool try_wait_for_completion(struct completion *done)
 
-Finally to check state of a completion without changing it in any way is
-provided by completion_done() returning false if there is any posted
-completion that was not yet consumed by waiters implying that there are
-waiters and true otherwise;
+Finally, to check the state of a completion without changing it in any way, 
+call completion_done(), which returns false if there are no posted
+completions that were not yet consumed by waiters (implying that there are
+waiters) and true otherwise;
 
 	bool completion_done(struct completion *done)
 
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH] doc: completion: context, scope and language fixes

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:10:42 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Mind sending me the final version, modified by you?
> 
> OK, this is the current version. [...]

Much appreciated!

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Thanks,

	Ingo