From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@osadl.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Clark Williams <clark.williams@gmail.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 0/3] RT: Fix trylock deadlock without msleep() hack
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 14:04:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150905120457.GA21338@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509051217330.15006@nanos>
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> So the problem we need to solve is:
>
> retry:
> lock(B);
> if (!try_lock(A)) {
> unlock(B);
> cpu_relax();
> goto retry;
> }
>
> So instead of doing that proposed magic boost, we can do something
> more straight forward:
>
> retry:
> lock(B);
> if (!try_lock(A)) {
> lock_and_drop(A, B);
> unlock(A);
> goto retry;
> }
>
> lock_and_drop() queues the task as a waiter on A, drops B and then
> does the PI adjustment on A.
>
> Thoughts?
So why not do:
lock(B);
if (!trylock(A)) {
unlock(B);
lock(A);
lock(B);
}
?
Or, if this can be done, why didn't we do:
lock(A);
lock(B);
to begin with?
i.e. I'm not sure the problem is properly specified.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-05 12:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-04 1:19 [RFC][PATCH RT 0/3] RT: Fix trylock deadlock without msleep() hack Steven Rostedt
2015-09-04 1:19 ` [RFC][PATCH RT 1/3] locking: Add spin_try_or_boost_lock() infrastructure Steven Rostedt
2015-09-04 1:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-09-04 1:19 ` [RFC][PATCH RT 2/3] locking: Convert trylock spinners over to spin_try_or_boost_lock() Steven Rostedt
2015-09-04 1:19 ` [RFC][PATCH RT 3/3] rt: Make cpu_chill() into yield() and add new cpu_rest() as msleep(1) Steven Rostedt
2015-09-05 10:30 ` [RFC][PATCH RT 0/3] RT: Fix trylock deadlock without msleep() hack Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-05 12:04 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-09-05 12:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-09-07 8:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-07 10:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-08 7:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-09-08 8:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-14 9:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-09-08 16:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-09-08 19:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-09-05 12:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-09-05 12:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-09-05 12:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-09-07 9:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150905120457.GA21338@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=C.Emde@osadl.org \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=clark.williams@gmail.com \
--cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.