xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xfs-masters] [patch 2/2] fs/xfs_super: replace schedule_timeout() w

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [patch 2/2] fs/xfs_super: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep_interruptible()
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:45:44 -0800
Cc: domen@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050309032736.GA1687@frodo>
References: <20050306104000.A71391F204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050308000114.GG720@frodo> <20050308002031.GG2778@xxxxxxxxxx> <20050309032736.GA1687@frodo>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 02:27:36PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 04:20:31PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > While youre interface may be in human-sensible units, the internal timer
> > subsystem is not (jiffies only exist in the kernel).
> > msleep_interruptible() changes this, clearly. My patch doesn't really
> > change anything. It really shouldn't really result in any different
> > behavior as far as I can tell. msleep_interruptible() takes a timeout
> 
> Actually, discussing with Christoph a bit he's pointed out this is
> going to cause problems for the cases (both xfsbufd and xfssyncd)
> where we manually wakeup those processes - and there are several
> situations where we need to do that.

Could you explain this further? The existing code doesn't sleep on a
wait-queue, so msleep_interruptible() should not affect that. If you
wake-up the processes via a manual signal, then msleep_interruptible()
will still wake up. I'm not seeing how this patch changes any relevant
code paths (I'm admittedly not an XFS expert).

Thanks,
Nish


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>