From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
DanielWagnerwagi@monom.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, "Li, Yi" <yi1.li@linux.intel.com>,
"AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
oss-drivers@netronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: wake all waiters
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:58:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170628155851.GF21846@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170628134514.GA2644@linux-80c1.suse>
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:45:14AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/swait.h b/include/linux/swait.h
> > index 4a4e180d0a35..14fcf23cece4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/swait.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/swait.h
> > @@ -29,7 +29,10 @@
> > *
> > * As a side effect of this; the data structures are slimmer.
> > *
> > - * One would recommend using this wait queue where possible.
>
> So I think this was added due to the smaller footprint and fewer
> cycles that swait has compared to the traditional (bulkier)
> waitqueues. While probably not worth it, I guess we could offer
> super-simple waitqueues (sswait? :-) which do not have the rt caveats
> and uses a regular spinlock. The wakeup_all() call would not drop
> the lock upon every wakeup as we are stripping the waitqueue not
> for determinism, but for overhead. To mitigate this, we might
> also want to use wake_q for reduced hold q->lock hold times.
>
> But I don't think its worth yet another wait interface.
> Alternatively, it crossed my mind we could also have wakeup_all()
> use in the regular waitqueues, but I'd have to audit all the
> current users to make sure we could actually do this.
But this open-welcoming invite for swait then, should it go?
Luis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-28 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-23 23:37 [PATCH] firmware: wake all waiters Jakub Kicinski
2017-06-26 21:20 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-26 21:23 ` [PATCH v2] firmware: fix batched requests - " Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-29 15:16 ` Greg KH
2017-06-29 15:17 ` Greg KH
2017-06-29 17:36 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-26 23:41 ` [PATCH] firmware: " Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-27 2:10 ` Jakub Kicinski
2017-06-27 16:39 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-27 21:25 ` Jakub Kicinski
2017-06-27 22:24 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-27 22:39 ` Jakub Kicinski
2017-06-27 23:50 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-28 7:06 ` [systemd-devel] " Lennart Poettering
2017-06-28 16:06 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-28 16:21 ` Lennart Poettering
2017-06-28 17:57 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-29 19:56 ` Daniel Wagner
2017-06-27 17:48 ` Bjorn Andersson
2017-06-27 18:03 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-27 18:59 ` Bjorn Andersson
2017-06-27 19:08 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-27 19:52 ` Bjorn Andersson
2017-06-27 20:24 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-26 21:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-06-26 23:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-26 23:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-06-27 0:15 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-28 13:45 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-06-28 15:58 ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2017-06-28 19:03 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-06-29 19:08 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-06-29 19:48 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-30 16:32 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-07-05 16:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-05 16:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-07-12 18:45 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170628155851.GF21846@wotan.suse.de \
--to=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=DanielWagnerwagi@monom.org \
--cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=oss-drivers@netronome.com \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yi1.li@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).