Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:42:45 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Matthew Fleming <mdf356@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org, Weongyo Jeong <weongyo.jeong@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> Subject: Re: [RFC] Outline of USB process integration in the kernel taskqueue system Message-ID: <201011081142.46175.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinfsLB9QqvYZ6gyQL9YyPeVRx10et-oTpR%2B7f3X@mail.gmail.com> References: <201011012054.59551.hselasky@c2i.net> <201011080947.00550.jhb@freebsd.org> <AANLkTinfsLB9QqvYZ6gyQL9YyPeVRx10et-oTpR%2B7f3X@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
> >> >>
> >> >> As long as TQ_LOCK is held, the state of ta->ta_pending cannot change,
> >> >> nor can the set of running tasks. So the order of checks is
> >> >> irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> > I agree that the order of checks is not important. That is not the problem.
> >> >
> >> > Cut & paste from suggested taskqueue patch from Fleming:
> >> >
> >> > > +int
> >> >> > +taskqueue_cancel(struct taskqueue *queue, struct task *task)
> >> >> > +{
> >> >> > + int rc;
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > + TQ_LOCK(queue);
> >> >> > + if (!task_is_running(queue, task)) {
> >> >> > + if ((rc = task->ta_pending) > 0)
> >> >> > + STAILQ_REMOVE(&queue->tq_queue, task, task,
> >> >> > ta_link); + task->ta_pending = 0;
> >> >> > + } else {
> >> >> > + rc = -EBUSY;
> >> >
> >> > What happens in this case if ta_pending > 0. Are you saying this is not
> >> > possible? If ta_pending > 0, shouldn't we also do a STAILQ_REMOVE() ?
> >>
> >> Ah! I see what you mean.
> >>
> >> I'm not quite sure what the best thing to do here is; I agree it would
> >> be nice if taskqueue_cancel(9) dequeued the task, but I believe it
> >> also needs to indicate that the task is currently running. I guess
> >> the best thing would be to return the old pending count by reference
> >> parameter, and 0 or EBUSY to also indicate if there is a task
> >> currently running.
> >>
> >> Adding jhb@ to this mail since he has good thoughts on interfacing.
> >
> > I agree we should always dequeue when possible. I think it should return
> > -EBUSY in that case. That way code that uses 'cancel' followed by a
> > conditional 'drain' to implement a blocking 'cancel' will DTRT.
>
> Do we not also want the old ta_pending to be returned? In the case
> where a task is pending and is also currently running (admittedly a
> narrow window), how would we do this? This is why I suggested
> returning the old ta_pending by reference. This also allows callers
> who don't care about the old pending to pass NULL and ignore it.
I would be fine with that then. I wonder if taskqueue_cancel() could then
return a simple true/false. False if the task is running, and true
otherwise?
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201011081142.46175.jhb>