[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZOZ1cmqF3G0XO0ZH@cork>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:09:06 -0700
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...estorage.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Uday Shankar <ushankar@...estorage.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "ACPI, APEI, use raw spinlock in ERST"
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 07:57:52PM -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> You are right. I'm actually quite surprised how we turn a trylock into
> a spinning lock. Now I know, thank you!
On that subject, why do we turn a trylock into a spinning lock? Thomas,
is there a good argument against a patch like the one below?
If the question was ever considered, it seems to have happened outside
of mainline. At least I cannot find it in git history.
Jörn
--
If you cannot make a function run 100x faster, maybe you can
call it 100x less often.
-- Unknown
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index fcd9ad3f7f2e..5bda84d5879a 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1255,11 +1255,13 @@ static int __sched rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
/*
* The mutex has currently no owner. Lock the wait lock and try to
* acquire the lock. We use irqsave here to support early boot calls.
*/
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
+ ret = raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
+ if (!ret)
+ return 0;
ret = __rt_mutex_slowtrylock(lock);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists