Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] Cell SPU task notification

[Maynard Johnson]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> Index: linux-2.6.19-rc6-arnd1+patches/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.19-rc6-arnd1+patches.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c	2006-12-04 10:56:04.730698720 -0600
> +++ linux-2.6.19-rc6-arnd1+patches/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c	2007-01-15 16:22:31.808461448 -0600
> @@ -84,15 +84,42 @@
> 			    ctx ? ctx->object_id : 0, spu);
> }
>
> +static void notify_spus_active(void)
> +{
> +       int node;
> +	/* Wake up the active spu_contexts. When the awakened processes
> +	 * sees their notify_active flag is set, they will call
> +	 * spu_notify_already_active().
> +	 */
> +	for (node = 0; node < MAX_NUMNODES; node++) {
> +		struct spu *spu;
> +		mutex_lock(&spu_prio->active_mutex[node]);
> +                list_for_each_entry(spu, &spu_prio->active_list[node], list) {
>
> 	You seem to have some issues with tabs vs spaces for indentation
> 	here.
>  
fixed

> +			struct spu_context *ctx = spu->ctx;
> +			spu->notify_active = 1;
>
>
> 	Please make this a bit in the sched_flags field that's added in
> 	the scheduler patch series I sent out.
>  
I haven't seen that the scheduler patch series got applied yet.  This 
Cell spu task notification patch is a pre-req for OProfile development 
to support profiling SPUs.   When the scheduler patch gets applied to a 
kernel version that fits our needs for our OProfile development, I don't 
see any problem in using the sched_flags field instead of notify_active.

> +			wake_up_all(&ctx->stop_wq);
> +			smp_wmb();
> +		}
> +                mutex_unlock(&spu_prio->active_mutex[node]);
> +	}
> +	yield();
> +}
>
> 	Why do you add the yield() here?  yield is pretty much a sign
> 	for a bug
>  
Yes, the yield() and the memory barriers were leftovers from an earlier 
ill-conceived attempt at solving this problem.  They should have been 
removed.  They're gone now.

> +void spu_notify_already_active(struct spu_context *ctx)
> +{
> +	struct spu *spu = ctx->spu;
> +	if (!spu)
> +		return;
> +	spu_switch_notify(spu, ctx);
> +}
>
> 	Please just call spu_switch_notify directly from the only
>  
I hesitated doing this since it would entail changing spu_switch_notify 
from being static to non-static.  I'd like to get Arnd's opinion on this 
question before going ahead and making such a change.

> 	caller.  Also the check for ctx->spu beeing there is not
> 	required if you look a the caller.
>
>
> 	*stat = ctx->ops->status_read(ctx);
> -	if (ctx->state != SPU_STATE_RUNNABLE)
> -		return 1;
> +	smp_rmb();
>  
>
>
> 	What do you need the barrier for here?
>  
Removed.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/