From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1758935AbcHYILy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 25 Aug 2016 04:11:54 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:47070 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751731AbcHYILx (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 25 Aug 2016 04:11:53 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:11:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@hpe.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid
 starvation
Message-ID: <20160825081141.GE10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160823124617.015645861@infradead.org>
 <20160823124856.898171453@infradead.org>
 <57BCA869.1050501@hpe.com>
 <20160823203204.GU10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <57BDFA72.4050700@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57BDFA72.4050700@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:50:10PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:

> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ static void __mutex_handoff(struct mutex *lock, struct
> task_st
>         for (;;) {
>                 unsigned long old, new;
> 
> +               if ((owner & ~MUTEX_FLAG_ALL) != current)
> +                       break;
>                 new = (owner & MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
>                 new |= (unsigned long)task;
> 
> I also think that the MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF bit needs to be cleared if the list
> is empty.
> 
> @@ -614,7 +633,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state,
> unsigned
>         mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, task);
>         /* set it to 0 if there are no waiters left: */
>         if (likely(list_empty(&lock->wait_list)))
> -               __mutex_clear_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
> +               __mutex_clear_flag(lock,
> MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS|MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> 
> Or we should try to reset the handoff bit after the while loop exit if the
> bit is still set.

Yes, I think you're right. I've also found another issue wrt WAITERS in
patch 1.

I'm not trying to get aim7 running to see if I can reproduce Jason's
results and verify things.