From: kevin@koconnor.net
To: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: lock order in O(1) scheduler
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:10:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020110001002.A13456@arizona.localdomain> (raw)
Hi Ingo,
I was looking through the new O(1) scheduler (found in linux-2.5.2-pre11),
when I came upon the following code in try_to_wake_up():
lock_task_rq(rq, p, flags);
p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
if (!p->array) {
if (!rt_task(p) && synchronous && (smp_processor_id() < p->cpu)) {
spin_lock(&this_rq()->lock);
p->cpu = smp_processor_id();
activate_task(p, this_rq());
spin_unlock(&this_rq()->lock);
} else {
I was unable to figure out what the logic of the '(smp_processor_id() <
p->cpu)' test is.. (Why should the CPU number of the process being awoken
matter?) My best guess is that this is to enforce a locking invariant -
but if so, isn't this test backwards? If p->cpu > current->cpu then
p->cpu's runqueue is locked first followed by this_rq - locking greatest to
least, where the rest of the code does least to greatest..
Also, this code in set_cpus_allowed() looks bogus:
if (target_cpu < smp_processor_id()) {
spin_lock_irq(&target_rq->lock);
spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
} else {
spin_lock_irq(&target_rq->lock);
spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
}
The lock order is the same regardless of the if statement..
-Kevin
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Kevin O'Connor "BTW, IMHO we need a FAQ for |
| kevin@koconnor.net 'IMHO', 'FAQ', 'BTW', etc. !" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
next reply other threads:[~2002-01-10 5:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-10 5:10 kevin [this message]
2002-01-10 5:26 ` Robert Love
2002-01-10 5:38 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-01-10 5:49 ` Robert Love
2002-01-10 6:29 ` kevin
2002-01-10 13:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-10 5:29 ` David S. Miller
2002-01-10 5:51 ` Robert Love
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=20020110001002.A13456@arizona.localdomain \
--to=kevin@koconnor.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®