From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Zubin Mithra <zsm@chromium.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, groeck@chromium.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, dvhart@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4.4.y] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock()
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:01:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190308110125.GA5014@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190307235904.18631-1-zsm@chromium.org>
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 03:59:04PM -0800, Zubin Mithra wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> commit 38d589f2fd08f1296aea3ce62bebd185125c6d81 upstream
>
> With the ultimate goal of keeping rt_mutex wait_list and futex_q waiters
> consistent it's necessary to split 'rt_mutex_futex_lock()' into finer
> parts, such that only the actual blocking can be done without hb->lock
> held.
>
> Split split_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() into two parts, one that does the
> blocking and one that does remove_waiter() when the lock acquire failed.
>
> When the rtmutex was acquired successfully the waiter can be removed in the
> acquisiton path safely, since there is no concurrency on the lock owner.
>
> This means that, except for futex_lock_pi(), all wait_list modifications
> are done with both hb->lock and wait_lock held.
>
> [bigeasy@linutronix.de: fix for futex_requeue_pi_signal_restart]
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com
> Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de
> Cc: xlpang@redhat.com
> Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org
> Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
> Cc: jdesfossez@efficios.com
> Cc: dvhart@infradead.org
> Cc: bristot@redhat.com
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170322104152.001659630@infradead.org
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Zubin Mithra <zsm@chromium.org>
> ---
> kernel/futex.c | 7 +++--
> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> kernel/locking/rtmutex_common.h | 9 ++++--
> 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Why is this needed for 4.4.y and not 4.9.y? What bug/issue does it
resolve?
From the changelog text, all it looks like it is doing here is
reorganizing the code a bit.
confused,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-08 11:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-07 23:59 [PATCH v4.4.y] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() Zubin Mithra
2019-03-08 11:01 ` Greg KH [this message]
2019-03-11 20:54 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-03-11 21:54 ` Greg KH
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=20190308110125.GA5014@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=groeck@chromium.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=zsm@chromium.org \
/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).