From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"lkml, " <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@in.ibm.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [TIP][RFC 6/7] futex: add requeue_pi calls
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:55:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49B5741F.6070005@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903071645480.29264@localhost.localdomain>
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Darren Hart wrote:
>> int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
>> struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
>> struct task_struct *task, int detect_deadlock)
>> {
>> int ret;
>>
>> spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
>> ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, waiter, task, detect_deadlock);
>>
>>
>> I add the following line to fix the bug. Question is, should I use this
>> atomic
>> optimization here (under the lock->wait_lock) or should I just do "lock->owner
>> |= RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS" ?
>>
>> =====> mark_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
>
> This is still not enough as I explained in the review of the original
> patch. What you need to do is:
>
> if (try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, task)) {
> spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> /* The caller needs to wake up task, as it is now the owner */
> return WAKEIT;
> }
>
> ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, waiter, task, detect_deadlock);
>
Right, so I'm testing this out:
mark_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock) || try_to_steal_lock(lock, task)) {
/* We got the lock for task. */
debug_rt_mutex_lock(lock);
rt_mutex_set_owner(lock, task, 0);
rt_mutex_deadlock_account_lock(lock, task);
return 1;
}
Steven, is this the proper use of the debug* routines? I copied them
from try_to_take_rt_mutex(), but they are empty routines without
comments so I wasn't sure exactly how they were intended to be used.
Does the usage of debug_rt_mutex_lock() assume task=current (the other
has the task_struct passed int).
Thanks,
Darren
>> if (ret && !waiter->task) {
>> /*
>> * Reset the return value. We might have
>> * returned with -EDEADLK and the owner
>> * released the lock while we were walking the
>> * pi chain. Let the waiter sort it out.
>> */
>> ret = 0;
>> }
>> spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
>>
>> debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-09 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-03 0:02 [TIP][RFC 0/7] requeue pi implemenation Darren Hart
2009-03-03 0:09 ` [TIP][RFC 1/7] futex: futex_wait_queue_me() Darren Hart
2009-03-03 0:11 ` [TIP][RFC 2/7] futex: futex_top_waiter() Darren Hart
2009-03-07 15:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-09 18:04 ` Darren Hart
2009-03-03 0:13 ` [TIP][RFC 3/7] futex: futex_lock_pi_atomic() Darren Hart
2009-03-03 13:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-03 17:29 ` Darren Hart
2009-03-03 0:14 ` [TIP][RFC 4/7] futex: finish_futex_lock_pi() Darren Hart
2009-03-07 15:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-09 18:05 ` Darren Hart
2009-03-03 0:16 ` [TIP][RFC 5/7] rt_mutex: add proxy lock routines Darren Hart
2009-03-07 15:44 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-09 18:31 ` Darren Hart
2009-03-03 0:20 ` [TIP][RFC 6/7] futex: add requeue_pi calls Darren Hart
2009-03-04 7:53 ` Darren Hart
2009-03-05 16:51 ` Darren Hart
2009-03-06 1:42 ` Darren Hart
2009-03-06 2:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-03-06 5:27 ` Darren Hart
2009-03-07 15:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-09 19:55 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2009-03-07 6:03 ` Sripathi Kodi
2009-03-09 9:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-10 4:50 ` Darren Hart
2009-03-10 13:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-03-03 0:23 ` [TIP][RFC 7/7] requeue pi testcase Darren Hart
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=49B5741F.6070005@us.ibm.com \
--to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=johnstul@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sripathik@in.ibm.com \
--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.