Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:45:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        computersforpeace@gmail.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        der.herr@hofr.at
Subject: Re: complete_all and "forever" completions
Message-ID: <20161026084535.GX3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20161025223054.GA22917@dtor-ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161025223054.GA22917@dtor-ws>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1312
Lines: 39

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 03:30:54PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Reading Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt, complete_all() is

Oh, there is documentation? /me goes read.

> supposed to be usable with "forever" completions, i.e. when we have an
> action that happens once and stays "done" for the rest of lifetime of an
> object, no matter how many times we check for "doneness".

I suppose you allude to this wording:

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

> However the
> implementation for complete_all() simply sets the counter to be greater
> or equal UINT_MAX/2 and do_wait_for_common() happily decreases it on
> every call.

This is indeed so.

> Is it simply an artefact of [older] implementation where we do not
> expect to make that many calls to wait_for_completion*() so that
> completion that is signalled with ocmplete_all() is practically stays
> signalled forever?

The text says it was written against v3.18 or thereabout, and that
implementation looks a lot like todays, so I doubt it ever worked like
that.

> Or do we need something like this in
> do_wait_for_common():
> 
> 	if (x->done < UINT_MAX/2)
> 		x->done--;

Depends a bit, do you really want this? Seems a bit daft to keep asking
if its done already, seems like a waste of cycles to me.