public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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