On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:09 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -4672,6 +4672,72 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule);
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +/*
> > + * Look out! "owner" is an entirely speculative pointer
> > + * access and not reliable.
> > + */
> > +int spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct thread_info *owner)
> > +{
> > +   unsigned int cpu;
> > +   struct rq *rq;
> > +   int ret = 1;
> > +
> > +   if (unlikely(!sched_feat(OWNER_SPIN)))
> 
> I would remove the "unlikely", if someone turns OWNER_SPIN off, then you 
> have the wrong decision being made. Choices by users should never be in a 
> "likely" or "unlikely" annotation. It's discrimination ;-)

in the unlikely case we schedule(), that seems expensive enough to want
to make the spin case ever so slightly faster.

> > +           return 0;
> > +
> > +   preempt_disable();
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> > +   /*
> > +    * Need to access the cpu field knowing that
> > +    * DEBUG_PAGEALLOC could have unmapped it if
> > +    * the mutex owner just released it and exited.
> > +    */
> > +   if (probe_kernel_address(&owner->cpu, cpu))
> > +           goto out;
> > +#else
> > +   cpu = owner->cpu;
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +   /*
> > +    * Even if the access succeeded (likely case),
> > +    * the cpu field may no longer be valid.
> > +    */
> > +   if (cpu >= nr_cpumask_bits)
> > +           goto out;
> > +
> > +   /*
> > +    * We need to validate that we can do a
> > +    * get_cpu() and that we have the percpu area.
> > +    */
> > +   if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> > +           goto out;
> 
> Should we need to do a "get_cpu" or something? Couldn't the CPU disappear 
> between these two calls. Or does it do a stop-machine and the preempt 
> disable will protect us?

Did you miss the preempt_disable() a bit up?

> > +
> > +   rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > +
> > +   for (;;) {
> > +           if (lock->owner != owner)
> > +                   break;
> > +
> > +           /*
> > +            * Is that owner really running on that cpu?
> > +            */
> > +           if (task_thread_info(rq->curr) != owner)
> > +                   break;
> > +
> > +           if (need_resched()) {
> > +                   ret = 0;
> > +                   break;
> > +           }
> > +
> > +           cpu_relax();
> > +   }
> > +out:
> > +   preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > +   return ret;
> > +}
> > +#endif

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to