On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:57:08PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_WW_MUTEX_RTMUTEX
> +static void ww_mutex_lock_acquired(struct ww_mutex *ww,
> +                                struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
> +     /*
> +      * If this WARN_ON triggers, you used ww_mutex_lock to acquire,
> +      * but released with a normal mutex_unlock in this call.
> +      *
> +      * This should never happen, always use ww_mutex_unlock.
> +      */
> +     DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ww->ctx);
> +
> +     /*
> +      * Not quite done after calling ww_acquire_done() ?
> +      */
> +     DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ww_ctx->done_acquire);
> +
> +     if (ww_ctx->contending_lock) {
> +             /*
> +              * After -EDEADLK you tried to
> +              * acquire a different ww_mutex? Bad!
> +              */
> +             DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ww_ctx->contending_lock != ww);
> +
> +             /*
> +              * You called ww_mutex_lock after receiving -EDEADLK,
> +              * but 'forgot' to unlock everything else first?
> +              */
> +             DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ww_ctx->acquired > 0);
> +             ww_ctx->contending_lock = NULL;
> +     }
> +
> +     /*
> +      * Naughty, using a different class will lead to undefined behavior!
> +      */
> +     DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ww_ctx->ww_class != ww->ww_class);
> +#endif
> +     ww_ctx->acquired++;
> +}
> +#endif

> +#ifdef CONFIG_WW_MUTEX_RTMUTEX
> +static int ww_mutex_deadlock_injection(struct ww_mutex *lock,
> +                                    struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> +     unsigned tmp;
> +
> +     if (ctx->deadlock_inject_countdown-- == 0) {
> +             tmp = ctx->deadlock_inject_interval;
> +             if (tmp > UINT_MAX/4)
> +                     tmp = UINT_MAX;
> +             else
> +                     tmp = tmp*2 + tmp + tmp/2;
> +
> +             ctx->deadlock_inject_interval = tmp;
> +             ctx->deadlock_inject_countdown = tmp;
> +             ctx->contending_lock = lock;
> +
> +             ww_mutex_unlock(lock);
> +
> +             return -EDEADLK;
> +     }
> +#endif
> +
> +     return 0;
> +}

AFAICT these functions are identical in both cases, should we stuff them
in a common file instead of copy/pasting them?
--
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/

Reply via email to