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;
Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:29:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20181210.172912.1960183648027850219.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     arnd@arndb.de
Cc:     tgraf@suug.ch, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, neilb@suse.com,
        tom@quantonium.net, keescook@chromium.org, paulb@mellanox.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test_rhashtable: remove semaphore usage
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20181210211957.210189-1-arnd@arndb.de>
References: <20181210211957.210189-1-arnd@arndb.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:17:20 +0100

> This is one of only two files that initialize a semaphore to a negative
> value. We don't really need the two semaphores here at all, but can do
> the same thing in more conventional and more effient way, by using a
> single waitqueue and an atomic thread counter.
> 
> This gets us a little bit closer to eliminating classic semaphores from
> the kernel. It also fixes a corner case where we fail to continue after
> one of the threads fails to start up.
> 
> An alternative would be to use a split kthread_create()+wake_up_process()
> and completely eliminate the separate synchronization.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> This is part of a longer, untested, series to remove semaphores
> from the kernel, please review as such before applying.

This looks fine to me, although it seems kinda weird how the
synchronization works in that the N - 1 child threads will
be awoken two times, once when child N decrements the count
to zero and once when the parent decrements the count to -1
which lets us past the wait_event_interruptibel().

Nevertheless it should work just fine and I have no problems
with it.

Want me to apply this to net-next?

Thanks.