[PATCH] task_work_run: don't take ->pi_lock unconditionally

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

As Peter pointed out, task_work() can avoid ->pi_lock and cmpxchg()
if task->task_works == NULL && !PF_EXITING.

And in fact the only reason why task_work_run() needs ->pi_lock is
the possible race with task_work_cancel(), we can optimize this code
and make the locking more clear.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/task_work.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c
index 0fef395..825f282 100644
--- a/kernel/task_work.c
+++ b/kernel/task_work.c
@@ -97,16 +97,26 @@ void task_work_run(void)
 		 * work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
 		 * work_exited unless the list is empty.
 		 */
-		raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
 		do {
+			head = NULL;
 			work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
-			head = !work && (task->flags & PF_EXITING) ?
-				&work_exited : NULL;
+			if (!work) {
+				if (task->flags & PF_EXITING)
+					head = &work_exited;
+				else
+					break;
+			}
 		} while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, work, head) != work);
-		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
 
 		if (!work)
 			break;
+		/*
+		 * Synchronize with task_work_cancel(). It can not remove
+		 * the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) must fail.
+		 * But it can remove another entry from the ->next list.
+		 */
+		raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
 
 		do {
 			next = work->next;
-- 
2.5.0