VFS: fix pipe resumption delay bug
Commit 723e513 erroneously removed a yield() call from VFS which was necessary to get resumed pipe read/write threads to run before VFS blocks on receive(). The removal caused those threads to run only once VFS received another message, effectively slowing down activity on pipes to a crawl in some cases. Instead of readding the yield() call, this patch restructures the get_work() code to go back through the main message loop even when no new work is received, thus ensuring that newly started threads are always activated without requiring a special case. This fixes #65. Change-Id: I59b7fb9e403d87dba1a5deecb04539cc37517742
This commit is contained in:
		
							parent
							
								
									e1e2bc96d2
								
							
						
					
					
						commit
						5055c7ea51
					
				| @ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void do_init_root(void); | ||||
| static void handle_work(void (*func)(void)); | ||||
| static void reply(message *m_out, endpoint_t whom, int result); | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| static void get_work(void); | ||||
| static int get_work(void); | ||||
| static void service_pm(void); | ||||
| static int unblock(struct fproc *rfp); | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| @ -74,7 +74,12 @@ int main(void) | ||||
| 	yield_all();	/* let other threads run */ | ||||
| 	self = NULL; | ||||
| 	send_work(); | ||||
| 	get_work(); | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| 	/* The get_work() function returns TRUE if we have a new message to
 | ||||
| 	 * process. It returns FALSE if it spawned other thread activities. | ||||
| 	 */ | ||||
| 	if (!get_work()) | ||||
| 		continue; | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| 	transid = TRNS_GET_ID(m_in.m_type); | ||||
| 	if (IS_VFS_FS_TRANSID(transid)) { | ||||
| @ -476,27 +481,22 @@ void thread_cleanup(void) | ||||
| /*===========================================================================*
 | ||||
|  *				get_work				     * | ||||
|  *===========================================================================*/ | ||||
| static void get_work() | ||||
| static int get_work(void) | ||||
| { | ||||
|   /* Normally wait for new input.  However, if 'reviving' is
 | ||||
|    * nonzero, a suspended process must be awakened. | ||||
|   /* Normally wait for new input.  However, if 'reviving' is nonzero, a
 | ||||
|    * suspended process must be awakened.  Return TRUE if there is a message to | ||||
|    * process (usually newly received, but possibly a resumed request), or FALSE | ||||
|    * if a thread for other activities has been spawned instead. | ||||
|    */ | ||||
|   int r, found_one, proc_p; | ||||
|   int r, proc_p; | ||||
|   register struct fproc *rp; | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   while (reviving != 0) { | ||||
| 	found_one = FALSE; | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   if (reviving != 0) { | ||||
| 	/* Find a suspended process. */ | ||||
| 	for (rp = &fproc[0]; rp < &fproc[NR_PROCS]; rp++) | ||||
| 		if (rp->fp_pid != PID_FREE && (rp->fp_flags & FP_REVIVED)) { | ||||
| 			found_one = TRUE; /* Found a suspended process */ | ||||
| 			if (unblock(rp)) | ||||
| 				return;	/* So main loop can process job */ | ||||
| 			send_work(); | ||||
| 		} | ||||
| 		if (rp->fp_pid != PID_FREE && (rp->fp_flags & FP_REVIVED)) | ||||
| 			return unblock(rp); /* So main loop can process job */ | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| 	if (!found_one)	/* Consistency error */ | ||||
| 	panic("VFS: get_work couldn't revive anyone"); | ||||
|   } | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| @ -510,11 +510,6 @@ static void get_work() | ||||
| 	if (proc_p < 0 || proc_p >= NR_PROCS) fp = NULL; | ||||
| 	else fp = &fproc[proc_p]; | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| 	if (m_in.m_type == EDEADSRCDST) { | ||||
| 		printf("VFS: failed ipc_sendrec\n"); | ||||
| 		return;	/* Failed 'ipc_sendrec' */ | ||||
| 	} | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| 	/* Negative who_p is never used to access the fproc array. Negative
 | ||||
| 	 * numbers (kernel tasks) are treated in a special way. | ||||
| 	 */ | ||||
| @ -536,8 +531,9 @@ static void get_work() | ||||
| 			fproc[who_p].fp_endpoint, who_e); | ||||
| 	} | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| 	return; | ||||
| 	return TRUE; | ||||
|   } | ||||
|   /* NOTREACHED */ | ||||
| } | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| /*===========================================================================*
 | ||||
|  | ||||
		Loading…
	
	
			
			x
			
			
		
	
		Reference in New Issue
	
	Block a user
	 David van Moolenbroek
						David van Moolenbroek