From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755371Ab1ALRFj (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:05:39 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:61740 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752214Ab1ALRFg (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:05:36 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=+c36koQ5Dcj/1qolKHjtkYAGXvrVJRRiKMp+84F5sLg= c=1 sm=0 a=3KrOCe59Vw4A:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=RiWFUA6wh9IC3PqLYXAA:9 a=-UOWRHc9g_cv5Y1BTq_T0E6rT8MA:4 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] rtmutex: ensure only the top waiter or higher priority task can take the lock and remove unrelated boosting From: Steven Rostedt To: Lai Jiangshan Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Dave Young , Darren Hart , Namhyung Kim , LKML , Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: <1294851864.26623.373.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> References: <4D07330A.7020600@cn.fujitsu.com> <4D083900.1050801@cn.fujitsu.com> <1292386606.5015.1862.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <4D130D23.1040309@cn.fujitsu.com> <1294851790.26623.372.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1294851864.26623.373.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:05:34 -0500 Message-ID: <1294851934.26623.374.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 12:04 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 12:03 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 16:49 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > > In current rtmutex, the pending owner may be boosted by the tasks > > > in the rtmutex's waitlist when the pending owner is deboosted > > > or a task in the waitlist is boosted. This boosting is unrelated, > > > because the pending owner does not really take the rtmutex. > > > It is not reasonable. > > > > Hi Lai, > > > > Your patch looks like it is proving itself in -rt (after I fixed a bunch > > of -rt stuff to get your stuff working ;). > > > > Could you repost your patch with the following removed: > > Oh, and you can add: > > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt > Actually this would be more appropriate: Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt -- Steve