On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/10, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > I think rtmutex has an
> > > issue with it too. Specifically in the slow_unlock case:
> > >
> > > if (!rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock)) {
> > > lock->owner = NULL;
> > > raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> > > return;
> > > }
> >
> > Indeed. If the fast path is enabled we have that issue. Fortunately
> > there is a halfways reasonable solution for this.
>
> Ah, yes, I missed that,
>
> > + while (!rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock)) {
> > + /* Drops lock->wait_lock ! */
> > + if (unlock_rt_mutex_safe(lock) == true)
> > + return;
> > + /* Relock the rtmutex and try again */
> > + raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> > }
>
> OK...
>
> wakeup_next_waiter() does rt_mutex_set_owner(NULL) before we drop ->wait_lock,
> but this looks fine: we know that rt_mutex_has_waiters() can not become false
> until waiter->task takes this lock and does rt_mutex_dequeue(), so ->owner
> can't be NULL, right?
Correct.
> Perhaps it could simply do ->owner = RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS to make this more
> clear...
Good point. The new owner can cleanup the mess.
> Off-topic question. I simply can't understand why rt_mutex_slowtrylock()
> checks
> rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current. This looks pointless, try_to_take_rt_mutex()
> always fails (correctly) if rt_mutex_owner() != NULL ? IOW, can't we simply
> remove this check or turn it into "if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock))" ?
Indeed.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
