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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).