On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <hsela...@c2i.net> wrote: > On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote: >> >> >> >> I think that if a task is currently executing, then there should >> >> >> >> be a drain method for that. I.E. two methods: One to stop and one >> >> >> >> to cancel/drain. Can you implement this? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I agree, this would also be consistent with the callout_*() API if >> >> >> > you had both "stop()" and "drain()" methods. >> >> >> >> >> >> Here's my proposed code. Note that this builds but is not yet >> >> >> tested. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Implement a taskqueue_cancel(9), to cancel a task from a queue. >> >> >> >> >> >> Requested by: hps >> >> >> Original code: jeff >> >> >> MFC after: 1 week >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/bsd-taskqueue-cancel.diff >> >> > >> >> > For FreeBSD taskqueue_cancel() should return EBUSY, not -EBUSY. >> >> > However, I would prefer that it follow the semantics of >> >> > callout_stop() and return true if it stopped the task and false >> >> > otherwise. The Linux wrapper for taskqueue_cancel() can convert the >> >> > return value. >> >> >> >> I used -EBUSY since positive return values reflect the old pending >> >> count. ta_pending was zero'd, and I think needs to be to keep the >> >> task sane, because all of taskqueue(9) assumes a non-zero ta_pending >> >> means the task is queued. >> >> >> >> I don't know that the caller often needs to know the old value of >> >> ta_pending, but it seems simpler to return that as the return value >> >> and use -EBUSY than to use an optional pointer to a place to store the >> >> old ta_pending just so we can keep the error return positive. >> >> >> >> Note that phk (IIRC) suggested using -error in the returns for >> >> sbuf_drain to indicate the difference between success (> 0 bytes >> >> drained) and an error, so FreeBSD now has precedent. I'm not entirely >> >> sure that's a good thing, since I am not generally fond of Linux's use >> >> of -error, but for some cases it is convenient. >> >> >> >> But, I'll do this one either way, just let me know if the above hasn't >> >> convinced you. >> > >> > Hmm, I hadn't considered if callers would want to know the pending count >> > of the cancelled task. >> > >> >> > I'm not sure I like reusing the memory allocation flags (M_NOWAIT / >> >> > M_WAITOK) for this blocking flag. In the case of callout(9) we just >> >> > have two functions that pass an internal boolean to the real routine >> >> > (callout_stop() and callout_drain() are wrappers for >> >> > _callout_stop_safe()). It is a bit unfortunate that >> >> > taskqueue_drain() already exists and has different semantics than >> >> > callout_drain(). It would have been nice to have the two APIs mirror >> >> > each other instead. >> >> > >> >> > Hmm, I wonder if the blocking behavior cannot safely be provided by >> >> > just doing: >> >> > >> >> > if (!taskqueue_cancel(queue, task, M_NOWAIT) >> >> > taskqueue_drain(queue, task); >> >> >> >> This seems reasonable and correct. I will add a note to the manpage >> >> about this. >> > >> > In that case, would you be fine with dropping the blocking functionality >> > from taskqueue_cancel() completely and requiring code that wants the >> > blocking semantics to use a cancel followed by a drain? >> >> New patch is at >> http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Implement-taskqueue_cancel-9-to-cancel- >> a-task-from-a.patch > > I think the: > > + if (!task_is_running(queue, task)) { > > check needs to be omitted. Else you block the possibility of enqueue and > cancel a task while it is actually executing/running ??
Huh? If the task is currently running, there's nothing to do except return failure. Task running means it can't be canceled, because... it's running. Thanks, matthew _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
