Re: [RFC] Outline of USB process integration in the kernel taskqueue system

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_at_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_at_ 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.

-- 
John Baldwin