From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 02/10] rtmutex: Simplify rtmutex_slowtrylock()
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:58:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140613115809.2b032402@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140611183853.029651737@linutronix.de>
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:44:04 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> Oleg noticed that rtmutex_slowtrylock() has a pointless check for
> rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current.
>
> To avoid calling try_to_take_rtmutex() we really want to check whether
> the lock has an owner at all or whether the trylock failed because the
> owner is NULL, but the RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS bit is set. This covers
> the lock is owned by caller situation as well.
>
> We can actually do this check lockless. trylock is taking a chance
> whether we take lock->wait_lock to do the check or not.
>
> Add comments to the function while at it.
>
> Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> ---
> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> Index: tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tip.orig/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -963,22 +963,32 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
> /*
> * Slow path try-lock function:
> */
> -static inline int
> -rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
> +static inline int rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
> {
> - int ret = 0;
> + int ret;
>
> + /*
> + * trylock is taking a chance. So we dont have to take
> + * @lock->wait_lock to figure out whether @lock has a real or
"whether @lock has a real"
real what?
> + * if @lock owner is NULL and the RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS bit is
> + * set.
I don't understand the above. As rt_mutex_owner() will ignore the
RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS bit.
I think a simple comment is good enough:
/*
* If the lock already has an owner we fail to get the lock.
* This can be done without taking the @lock->wait_lock as
* it is only being read, and this is a trylock anyway.
> + */
> + if (rt_mutex_owner(lock))
> + return 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * The mutex has currently no owner. Lock the wait lock and
> + * try to acquire the lock.
> + */
> raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
>
> - if (likely(rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current)) {
> + ret = try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, current, NULL);
>
> - ret = try_to_take_rt_mutex(lock, current, NULL);
> - /*
> - * try_to_take_rt_mutex() sets the lock waiters
> - * bit unconditionally. Clean this up.
> - */
> - fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
> - }
> + /*
> + * try_to_take_rt_mutex() sets the lock waiters bit
> + * unconditionally. Clean this up.
> + */
> + fixup_rt_mutex_waiters(lock);
Rest looks good.
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
-- Steve
>
> raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-13 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-11 18:44 [patch V4 00/10] rtmutex: Code clarification and optimization Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 01/10] rtmutex: Plug slow unlock race Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 15:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-16 8:06 ` [tip:locking/urgent] " tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 02/10] rtmutex: Simplify rtmutex_slowtrylock() Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-12 3:34 ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-06-13 15:58 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 03/10] rtmutex: Simplify and document try_to_take_rtmutex() Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 16:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 04/10] rtmutex: No need to keep task ref for lock owner check Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 16:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 05/10] rtmutex: Clarify the boost/deboost part Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 16:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 06/10] rtmutex: Document pi chain walk Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 16:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 07/10] rtmutex: Simplify remove_waiter() Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 16:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 08/10] rtmutex: Confine deadlock logic to futex Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 17:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 09/10] rtmutex: Cleanup deadlock detector debug logic Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 17:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-13 19:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-11 18:44 ` [patch V4 10/10] rtmutex: Avoid pointless requeueing in the deadlock detection chain walk Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 17:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-13 19:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-22 8:45 ` [patch V4 00/10] rtmutex: Code clarification and optimization Ingo Molnar
2014-06-22 9:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=20140613115809.2b032402@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®