On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:44:20AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:33:08PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the
> > task needs to be rescheduled.
> >
>
> While I was staring at mutex_can_spin_on_owner(); don't we need this?
>
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 4dd6e4c219de..480d2f437964 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -214,8 +214,10 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex
> *lock)
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
> - if (owner)
> + if (owner) {
That is, its an unmatched barrier, as mutex_set_owner() doesn't include
a barrier, and I don't think i needs to; but on alpha we still need this
read barrier to ensure we do not mess up this related load afaik.
Paul? can you explain an unpaired read_barrier_depends?
> + smp_read_barrier_depends();
> retval = owner->on_cpu;
> + }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> /*
> * if lock->owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just acquired
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
