[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130409222707.GB20739@home.goodmis.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 18:27:07 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, robclark@...il.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks, v2
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:38:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Hm, I guess your aim with the TASK_DEADLOCK wakeup is to bound the
> > wait
> > times of older task.
>
> No, imagine the following:
>
> struct ww_mutex A, B;
> struct mutex C;
>
> task-O task-Y task-X
> A
> B
> C
> C
> B
>
> At this point O finds that Y owns B and thus we want to make Y 'yield'
> B to make allow B progress. Since Y is blocked, we'll send a wakeup.
> However Y is blocked on a different locking primitive; one that doesn't
> collaborate in the -EDEADLK scheme therefore we don't want the wakeup to
> succeed.
I'm confused to why the above is a problem. Task-X will eventually
release C, and then Y will release B and O will get to continue. Do we
have to drop them once the owner is blocked? Can't we follow the chain
like the PI code does?
-- Steve
--
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