From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C828B4C70 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:46:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734201998; cv=none; b=akBGKRrRQ1lVHMe8ROdvGdFjz44AiieUYFd0/UH2LaJ0701cAyZjNHHJqiYXVDl86Dwr8mGaEBUGxUbppP7GzXOBIUABeC+aVTFMunH1HY0m3Cq/vcwUfVbBZkvYH6mTaEb6btqzqA+hsJISpLz8BeGi8dGjvo37I6Da25i8Mv8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734201998; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+/vsE0RTiV0RGezZoK6RYc1wZ1Qg8mhhW+a0HaJN4UU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hG42sJMOce0mfrzbtPSgICcwqOI8B/0BttJwhnKsPB1yGKVqViUzHKAseIYJkklvn1lMBJoOFgwCwym0BN4L5pgRH4mWD9W1ZmqYTBxyp/TawhBoNyU7UEHf2sAlXEueAVgAihGjbakTc9X0WmTzZSzV/qpiws4u/ufr6tam8zs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=c7dZwC5V; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="c7dZwC5V" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=bYU0gnwwLL8Z6Ths3CBwCaNbHH5loDfzGARUYm9wAAE=; b=c7dZwC5V6aXvheQ7uJdBOTJktP SzG+ZvGzVe0fqzUfZDVKe0S0JjZwxOkefu5farixPs+b33cxrbqczxkBUiMaG87zAZPMTuhRASjSp koAcfvw3vwMh/DPR2AIgtfOcwQ91jgPxV4eaqvKQcw+Zak/9w72pojoFJi7UB4+3eYBht/XUhjKSL S7FLhcehl+yZXWxoBgTsOBcall9pTQJ+5R8Prw0DUSn4QWjxcYrXxRJgYjVrIvZCMu2q/cCTj/ogw ds+HprFQ1igxN4+b9TyxH/4VeGzVDzgM6lVX0L+DRnU3MB0QKJaofhRcvzIsyUgR0uLYdTToCLDX4 vzXdwFhg==; Received: from 77-249-17-89.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([77.249.17.89] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tMX9s-00000004YSh-0lRa; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:46:32 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 808F730035F; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:46:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:46:31 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: John Stultz Cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Waiman Long , Boqun Feng , Thomas Gleixner , Bert Karwatzki , kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] locking/rtmutex: Make sure we wake anything on the wake_q when we release the lock->wait_lock Message-ID: <20241214184631.GD10560@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20241212222138.2400498-1-jstultz@google.com> <20241213124614.GA12338@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 06:39:45PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 4:46 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > I think all of the calls are tied to the unlock (the one you quoted > earlier was removed with 82f9cc094975240), so would something like a > special unlock be reasonable: > raw_spin_unlock_irq_and_wake(&lock->wait_lock, wake_q) > ? Ha, that's what I started with :-) Then found there's two irq_restore() variants for raisins and it all turned to shit.