[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47BECE30.8030100@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:29:20 -0500
From: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins.ml@...il.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
CC: mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bill.huey@...il.com,
kevin@...man.org, cminyard@...sta.com, dsingleton@...sta.com,
dwalker@...sta.com, npiggin@...e.de, dsaxena@...xity.net,
ak@...e.de, gregkh@...e.de, sdietrich@...ell.com,
pmorreale@...ell.com, mkohari@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 05/14] rearrange rt_spin_lock sleep
Gregory Haskins wrote:
> @@ -732,14 +741,15 @@ rt_spin_lock_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
>
> debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(&waiter);
>
> - schedule_rt_mutex(lock);
> + update_current(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, &saved_state);
I have a question for everyone out there about this particular part of
the code. Patch 6/14 adds an optimization that is predicated on the
order in which we modify the state==TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE vs reading the
waiter.task below.
My assumption is that the xchg() (inside update_current()) acts as an
effective wmb(). If xchg() does not have this property, then this code
is broken and patch 6/14 should also add a:
+ smp_wmb();
> + if (waiter.task)
> + schedule_rt_mutex(lock);
> + else
> + update_current(TASK_RUNNING_MUTEX, &saved_state);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> current->flags |= saved_flags;
> current->lock_depth = saved_lock_depth;
> - state = xchg(¤t->state, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> - if (unlikely(state == TASK_RUNNING))
> - saved_state = TASK_RUNNING;
Does anyone know the answer to this?
Regards,
-Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists