Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:21:53 -0800
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: domen@coderock.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] include/delay: replace msleep{,_interruptible}() with macros
Message-ID: <20041120012153.GE6181@us.ibm.com>
References: <20041117024944.GB4218@us.ibm.com> <20041120011751.GD6181@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041120011751.GD6181@us.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4945
Lines: 127

On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 05:17:51PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:49:44PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > After some pretty heavy discussion on IRC, I felt that it may be
> > important / useful to bring the discussion of schedule_timeout() to
> > LKML. There are two issues being considered:
> > 
> > 1) msleep_interruptible()
> > 
> > For reference, here is the code for this function:
> > 
> > /**
> >  * msleep_interruptible - sleep waiting for waitqueue interruptions
> >  * @msecs: Time in milliseconds to sleep for
> >  */
> > unsigned long msleep_interruptible(unsigned int msecs)
> > {
> > 	unsigned long timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(msecs);
> > 
> > 	while (timeout && !signal_pending(current)) {
> > 		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > 		timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> > 	}
> > 	return jiffies_to_msecs(timeout);
> > }
> > 
> > The first issue deals with whether the while() loop is at all necessary.
> > From my understanding (primarily from how the code "should" behave, but
> > also backed up by code itself), I think the following code:
> > 
> > 	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > 	timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> > 
> > should be interpreted as:
> > 
> > 	a) I wish to sleep for timeout jiffies; however
> > 	b) If a signal occurs before timeout jiffies have gone by, I
> > 	would also like to wake up.
> > 	
> > With this interpretation, though, the while()-conditional becomes
> > questionable. I can see two cases (think inclusive OR not exclusive) for
> > schedule_timeout() returning:
> > 
> > 	a) A signal was received and thus signal_pending(current) will
> > 	be true, exiting the loop. In this case, timeout will be
> > 	some non-negative value (0 is a corner case, I believe, where
> > 	both the timer fires and a signal is received in the last jiffy).
> > 	b) The timer in schedule_timeout() has expired and thus it will
> > 	return 0. This indicates the function has delayed the requested
> > 	time (at least) and timeout will be set to 0, again exiting the
> > 	loop.
> > 	
> > Clearly, then, if my interpretion is correct, schedule_timeout() will
> > always return to a state in msleep_interruptible() which causes the loop
> > to only iterate the one time. Does this make sense? Is my interpretation
> > of schedule_timeout()s functioning somehow flawed? If not, we probably
> > can go ahead and change the msleep_interruptible() code, yes?
> 
> Here is the function variant of the previous patches.

Here is the corresponding change to delay.h. The major difference from
the macro version is that a flag is now passed to __msleep_sig() to
determine whether an extra condition is necessary in the while() loop.

-Nish

Description: Add macros for various sleep functions, one for each case
of:

Description: Remove prototypes of msleep() and msleep_interruptible() to
prepare for the macro versions of these functions. Add prototypes for
__msleep_wq() and __msleep_sig(). Add macros for 4 types of sleeps:
        1) Unconditional sleep (msleep)
        2) Sleep until signalled (msleep_interruptible)
        3) Sleep until wait-queue event (msleep_wq)
        4) Sleep until either signalled or wait-queue event 
	(msleep_wq_interruptible)
These 4 cases are all distinct and handled separately by passing
appropriate flags to __msleep_sig and __msleep_wq, which should *not*
ever be called directly by kernel code.
					

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>


--- 2.6.10-rc2-vanilla/include/linux/delay.h	2004-11-19 16:11:52.000000000 -0800
+++ 2.6.10-rc2/include/linux/delay.h	2004-11-19 17:12:47.000000000 -0800
@@ -38,8 +38,31 @@ extern unsigned long loops_per_jiffy;
 #define ndelay(x)	udelay(((x)+999)/1000)
 #endif
 
-void msleep(unsigned int msecs);
-unsigned long msleep_interruptible(unsigned int msecs);
+unsigned int __msleep_sig(unsigned int msecs, long state, int check_sigs);
+unsigned int __msleep_wq(unsigned int msecs, long state);
+
+/*
+ * Sleep until at least msecs ms have elapsed
+ */ 
+#define msleep(msecs) (void)__msleep_sig(msecs, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 0)
+
+/*
+ * Sleep until at least msecs ms have elapsed or a signal is received
+ */
+#define msleep_interruptible(msecs)		\
+	__msleep_sig(msecs, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 1))
+
+/*
+ * Sleep until at least msecs ms have elapsed or a wait-queue event occurs
+ */
+#define msleep_wq(msecs) __msleep_wq_state(msecs, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
+
+/*
+ * Sleep until at least msecs ms have elapsed or a wait-queue event occurs
+ * or a signal is received
+ */
+#define msleep_wq_interruptible(msecs)		\
+	__msleep_wq_state(msecs, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
 
 static inline void ssleep(unsigned int seconds)
 {
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/