The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	xlpang@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jdesfossez@efficios.com,
	bristot@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/8] rtmutex: Clean up
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:08:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160614120813.GH5981@e106622-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160607200215.923213194@infradead.org>

Hi,

On 07/06/16 21:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Previous patches changed the meaning of the return value of
> rt_mutex_slowunlock(); update comments and code to reflect this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
>  kernel/futex.c                  |   12 ++++++------
>  kernel/locking/rtmutex.c        |   20 +++++++++-----------
>  kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h |    2 +-
>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -1261,7 +1261,7 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
>  	struct futex_pi_state *pi_state = this->pi_state;
>  	u32 uninitialized_var(curval), newval;
>  	WAKE_Q(wake_q);
> -	bool deboost;
> +	bool postunlock;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	if (!pi_state)
> @@ -1327,17 +1327,17 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uad
>  
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock);
>  
> -	deboost = rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q);
> +	postunlock = rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * First unlock HB so the waiter does not spin on it once he got woken
> -	 * up. Second wake up the waiter before the priority is adjusted. If we
> -	 * deboost first (and lose our higher priority), then the task might get
> -	 * scheduled away before the wake up can take place.
> +	 * up. Then wakeup the waiter by calling rt_mutex_postunlock(). Priority
> +	 * is already adjusted and preemption is disabled to avoid inversion.
>  	 */
>  	spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
>  
> -	rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q, deboost);
> +	if (postunlock)
> +		rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q);

I'm most probably missing something, but don't we still need to call
wake_up_q() even when postunlock is false? IIUC, we were always doing
that, rt_mutex_postunlock(), before this change (only calling
preempt_enable() was conditional).

Best,

- Juri

>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -1254,7 +1254,8 @@ static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(s
>  
>  /*
>   * Slow path to release a rt-mutex.
> - * Return whether the current task needs to undo a potential priority boosting.
> + *
> + * Return whether the current task needs to call rt_mutex_postunlock().
>   */
>  static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
>  					struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
> @@ -1327,7 +1328,7 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(
>  
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>  
> -	/* check PI boosting */
> +	/* call rt_mutex_postunlock() */
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> @@ -1378,15 +1379,14 @@ rt_mutex_fasttrylock(struct rt_mutex *lo
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * Undo pi boosting (if necessary) and wake top waiter.
> + * Performs the wakeup of the the top-waiter and re-enables preemption.
>   */
> -void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, bool deboost)
> +void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
>  {
>  	wake_up_q(wake_q);
>  
>  	/* Pairs with preempt_disable() in rt_mutex_slowunlock() */
> -	if (deboost)
> -		preempt_enable();
> +	preempt_enable();
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -1489,9 +1489,8 @@ void __sched rt_mutex_unlock(struct rt_m
>  		rt_mutex_deadlock_account_unlock(current);
>  
>  	} else {
> -		bool deboost = rt_mutex_slowunlock(lock, &wake_q);
> -
> -		rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q, deboost);
> +		if (rt_mutex_slowunlock(lock, &wake_q))
> +			rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q);
>  	}
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_unlock);
> @@ -1500,8 +1499,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt_mutex_unlock);
>   * rt_mutex_futex_unlock - Futex variant of rt_mutex_unlock
>   * @lock: the rt_mutex to be unlocked
>   *
> - * Returns: true/false indicating whether priority adjustment is
> - * required or not.
> + * Returns: true/false indicating whether we should call rt_mutex_postunlock().
>   */
>  bool __sched rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
>  				   struct wake_q_head *wqh)
> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ extern int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(st
>  extern int rt_mutex_timed_futex_lock(struct rt_mutex *l, struct hrtimer_sleeper *to);
>  extern bool rt_mutex_futex_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
>  				  struct wake_q_head *wqh);
> -extern void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q, bool deboost);
> +extern void rt_mutex_postunlock(struct wake_q_head *wake_q);
>  extern void rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct task_struct *task);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
> 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-14 12:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-07 19:56 [RFC][PATCH 0/8] PI and assorted failings Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/8] rtmutex: Deboost before waking up the top waiter Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14  9:09   ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 12:54     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 13:20       ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 13:59         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 16:36     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-14 17:01       ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 18:22   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/8] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 10:21   ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 12:30     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 12:53     ` Xunlei Pang
2016-06-14 13:07       ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 16:39         ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 18:42   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-14 20:28     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 16:14       ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/8] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Dont miss the dl_runtime/dl_period update Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 10:43   ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 12:09     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 16:30   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-15 17:55     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/8] rtmutex: Remove rt_mutex_fastunlock() Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 16:43   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/8] rtmutex: Clean up Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 12:08   ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2016-06-14 12:32     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 12:41       ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/8] sched/rtmutex: Refactor rt_mutex_setprio() Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 13:14   ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 14:08     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/8] sched,tracing: Update trace_sched_pi_setprio() Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 8/8] rtmutex: Fix PI chain order integrity Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 17:39   ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 19:44     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15  7:25       ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-27 12:23         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-27 12:40           ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-28  9:05           ` Juri Lelli

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=20160614120813.GH5981@e106622-lin \
    --to=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=jdesfossez@efficios.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=xlpang@redhat.com \
    /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