From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 4 18:00:34 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785B71065697; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:00:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437AA8FC13; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:00:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBBF946B5B; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD7D78A009; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:00:32 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:29:51 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20100819; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201011012054.59551.hselasky@c2i.net> <201011012115.15261.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201011041029.51864.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:00:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.3 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=4.2 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: Matthew Fleming , Andrew Thompson , Weongyo Jeong , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-usb@freebsd.org, Hans Petter Selasky Subject: Re: [RFC] Outline of USB process integration in the kernel taskqueue system X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:00:34 -0000 On Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:55:09 am Matthew Fleming wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky > > wrote: > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> > I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate > >> > the USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more > >> > direct way that to wrap it. > >> > > >> > The limitation of the existing taskqueue system is that it only > >> > guarantees execution at a given priority level. USB requires more. USB > >> > also requires a guarantee that the last task queued task also gets > >> > executed last. This is for example so that a deferred USB detach event > >> > does not happen before any pending deferred I/O for example in case of > >> > multiple occurring events. > >> > > >> > Mostly this new feature is targeted for GPIO-alike system using slow > >> > busses like the USB. Typical use case: > >> > > >> > 2 tasks to program GPIO on. > >> > 2 tasks to program GPIO off. > >> > > >> > Example: > >> > > >> > a) taskqueue_enqueue_odd(&sc->sc_taskqueue, &sc->sc_task_on[0], &sc- > >> > > >> >>sc_task_on[1]); > >> >> > >> > b) taskqueue_enqueue_odd(&sc->sc_taskqueue, &sc->sc_task_off[0], &sc- > >> > > >> >>sc_task_off[1]); > >> >> > >> > No matter how the call ordering of code-line a) and b), we are always > >> > guaranteed that the last queued state "on" or "off" is reached before the > >> > head of the taskqueue empties. > >> > > >> > > >> > In lack of a better name, the new function was called > >> > taskqueue_enqueue_odd [some people obviously think that USB processes > >> > are odd, but not taskqueues > >> > > >> > :-)] > >> > >> I'd like to make sure I understand the USB requirements. > >> > >> (1) does USB need the task priority field? Many taskqueue(9) consumers do > >> not. > > > > No, USB does not need a task priority field, but a sequence field associated > > with the task and task queue head to figure out which task was queued first > > without having to scan all the tasks queued. > > > >> (2) if there was a working taskqueue_remove(9) that removed the task > >> if pending or returned error if the task was currently running, would > >> that be sufficient to implement the required USB functionality? > >> (assuming that taskqueue_enqueue(9) put all tasks with equal priority > >> in order of queueing). > > > > No, not completely. See comment above. I also need information about which > > task was queued first, or else I have to keep this information separately, > > which again, confuse people. The more layers the more confusion? > > I don't follow why keeping the information about which task was queued > first privately rather than having taskqueue(9) maintain it is > confusing. So far, USB seems to be the only taskqueue consumer which > needs this information, so it makes a lot more sense to me for it to > be USB private. > > To my mind, there's primary operations, and secondary ones. A > secondary operation can be built from the primary ones. It reads to > me that, if there was a taskqueue_cancel(9) (and there is in Jeff's > OFED branch) then you could build the functionality you want (and > maybe you don't need cancel, even). While there is sometimes an > argument for making secondary operations available in a library, in > this case you need extra data which most other taskqueue consumers do > not. That would break the KBI. That is another argument in favor of > keeping the implementation private to USB. My sense is that I certainly agree. The fact that you can't think of a good name for the operation certainly indicates that it is not generic. Unfortunately, I don't really understand the problem that is being solved. I do agree that due to the 'pending' feature and automatic-coalescing of task enqueue operations, taskqueues do not lend themselves to a barrier operation. -- John Baldwin