Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E1E7020C0F
Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:21:39 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        rostedt@home.goodmis.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to
 load balance console writes
Message-ID: <20180118102139.43c04de5@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <171cf5b9-2cb6-8e70-87f5-44ace35c2ce4@lge.com>
References: <20180110132418.7080-1-pmladek@suse.com>
        <20180110132418.7080-2-pmladek@suse.com>
        <f4ea1404-404d-11d2-550c-7367add3f5fa@lge.com>
        <20180117120446.44ewafav7epaibde@pathway.suse.cz>
        <4a24ce1d-a606-3add-ec30-91ce9a1a1281@lge.com>
        <20180117211953.2403d189@vmware.local.home>
        <171cf5b9-2cb6-8e70-87f5-44ace35c2ce4@lge.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:01:46 +0900
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:

> > I disagree. It is like a spinlock. You can say a spinlock() that is
> > blocked is also waiting for an event. That event being the owner does a
> > spin_unlock().  
> 
> That's exactly what I was saying. Excuse me but, I don't understand
> what you want to say. Could you explain more? What do you disagree?

I guess I'm confused at what you are asking for then.


> > I find your way confusing. I'm simulating a spinlock not a wait for
> > completion. A wait for completion usually initiates something then  
> 
> I used the word, *event* instead of *completion*. wait_for_completion()
> and complete() are just an example of a pair of waiter and event.
> Lock and unlock can also be another example, too.
> 
> Important thing is that who waits and who triggers the event. Using the
> pair, we can achieve various things, for examples:
> 
>     1. Synchronization like wait_for_completion() does.
>     2. Control exclusively entering into a critical area.
>     3. Whatever.
> 
> > waits for it to complete. This is trying to get into a critical area
> > but another task is currently in it. It's simulating a spinlock as far
> > as I can see.  
> 
> Anyway it's an example of "waiter for an event, and the event".
> 
> JFYI, spinning or sleeping does not matter. Those are just methods to
> achieve a wait. I know you're not talking about this though. It's JFYI.

OK, if it is just FYI.

-- Steve