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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox