On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 03:47:31PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 02:14:52PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > > > @@ -718,11 +743,13 @@ softclock(void *arg) > > > softclock_process_tick_timeout(to, new); > > > } > > > tostat.tos_softclocks++; > > > - needsproc = !CIRCQ_EMPTY(&timeout_proc); > > > - mtx_leave(&timeout_mutex); > > > - > > > - if (needsproc) > > > + if (!CIRCQ_EMPTY(&timeout_proc)) > > > wakeup(&timeout_proc); > > > +#ifdef MULTIPROCESSOR > > > + if(!CIRCQ_EMPTY(&timeout_proc_mpsafe)) > > > + wakeup(&timeout_proc_mpsafe); > > > +#endif > > > + mtx_leave(&timeout_mutex); > > > } > > > > > > void > > > > Was there a good reason that wakeup() did run without mutex? > > Do we really want to change this? > > > > I dont understand you. Original code does wakeup() outside mutex. I > moved wakeup() under mutex. You want to move it back?
I just wanted to know why you moved it. Now I see. You use msleep_nsec() with timeout_mutex. Putting wakeup in mutex ensures that you don't miss it. Nitpick: timeoutmp_proc should be timeout_procmp. timeout_ is the prefix in this file. mp suffix is easier to see at the end. >+ if (kthread_create(softclockmp_thread, NULL, NULL, "softclockm")) "softclockm" -> "softclockmp" OK bluhm@, but let's wait for cheloha@ and see what he thinks
