[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307454439.2322.260.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:47:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: correct testing need_resched in
mutex_spin_on_owner()
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 21:41 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> It is suppose to check the owner task that is not absolutly running on the
> local CPU,
Oh, why do you think so?
> and if NEED_RESCHED is happenly set on the current task of local
> CPU, we get incorrect result.
Only if your above assumption holds, which it doesn't. It explicitly
checks to see if _this_ cpu needs a resched while spinning, if so it
bails the spinning and calls schedule in the lock slow path.
If the owner cpu reschedules, owner will leave the rq and
owner_running() will return false, also breaking the loop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index fd18f39..3ea64fe 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -4326,7 +4326,7 @@ int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock,
> struct task_struct *owner)
> return 0;
>
> while (owner_running(lock, owner)) {
> - if (need_resched())
> + if (test_tsk_need_resched(owner))
> return 0;
>
> arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
--
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