From: "Nicolai Hähnle" <nhaehnle@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Nicolai Hähnle" <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Chris Wilson" <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Nicolai Hähnle" <nicolai.haehnle@amd.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] locking/ww_mutex: Remove redundant wakeups in ww_mutex_set_context_slowpath
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 12:25:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1479900325-28358-2-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1479900325-28358-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
From: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>
When ww_mutex_set_context_slowpath runs, we are in one of two situations:
1. The current task was woken up by ww_mutex_unlock.
2. The current task is racing with ww_mutex_unlock: We entered the slow
path while lock->base.count <= 0, but skipped the wait in
__mutex_lock_common.
In both cases, all tasks that are currently contending for the lock are
either racing as in point 2 and blocked on lock->wait_lock, or they have
been or will be woken up by ww_mutex_unlock.
Either way, they will check their stamp against ours without having to be
woken up again.
This improvement is possible only after the changed behavior of
ww_mutex_unlock from the previous patch ("locking/ww_mutex: Fix a deadlock
affecting ww_mutexes").
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Signed-off-by: Nicolai Hähnle <nicolai.haehnle@amd.com>
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 17 ++++-------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 7fbf9b4..7c09376 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -192,8 +192,10 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(struct ww_mutex *lock,
}
/*
- * After acquiring lock in the slowpath set ctx and wake up any
- * waiters so they can recheck.
+ * After acquiring lock in the slowpath set ctx.
+ *
+ * Unlike the fast path, other waiters are already woken up by ww_mutex_unlock,
+ * so we don't have to do it again here.
*
* Callers must hold the mutex wait_lock.
*/
@@ -201,19 +203,8 @@ static __always_inline void
ww_mutex_set_context_slowpath(struct ww_mutex *lock,
struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
{
- struct mutex_waiter *cur;
-
ww_mutex_lock_acquired(lock, ctx);
lock->ctx = ctx;
-
- /*
- * Give any possible sleeping processes the chance to wake up,
- * so they can recheck if they have to back off.
- */
- list_for_each_entry(cur, &lock->base.wait_list, list) {
- debug_mutex_wake_waiter(&lock->base, cur);
- wake_up_process(cur->task);
- }
}
#ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
--
2.7.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-23 11:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-23 11:25 [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: Fix a deadlock affecting ww_mutexes Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-23 11:25 ` Nicolai Hähnle [this message]
2016-11-23 11:25 ` [PATCH 3/4] locking/Documentation: fix a typo Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-23 11:25 ` [PATCH 4/4] locking/ww_mutex: Fix a comment typo Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-23 12:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: Fix a deadlock affecting ww_mutexes Daniel Vetter
2016-11-23 13:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-23 13:08 ` Daniel Vetter
2016-11-23 13:11 ` Daniel Vetter
2016-11-23 13:33 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-11-23 14:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-23 14:25 ` Daniel Vetter
2016-11-23 14:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-24 11:26 ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-11-24 11:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-24 11:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2016-11-24 11:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-24 12:05 ` Nicolai Hähnle
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=1479900325-28358-2-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com \
--to=nhaehnle@gmail.com \
--cc=Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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
Powered by JetHome