[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140610111942.668d4058@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:19:42 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Brad Mouring" <bmouring@...com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 7/7] rtmutex: Avoid pointless requeueing in the
deadlock detection chain walk
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:57:25 -0500
"Brad Mouring" <bmouring@...com> wrote:
> > + /* Store whether owner is blocked itself and drop locks */
> > + next_lock = task_blocked_on(task);
> task_blocked_on(task) is not clear to me, the recipient of the
> return is the only clue that hints at what the function does.
Well, this is more than confusing, it's the only user, all other users
are task_blocked_on_lock(), and this causes the code not to compile.
-- Steve
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> > + raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> > +
> > + /* If owner is not blocked, end of chain. */
> > + if (!next_lock)
> > + goto out_put_task;
> > + goto again;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > * Store the current top waiter before doing the requeue
> > * operation on @lock. We need it for the boost/deboost
> > * decision below.
> >
> >
--
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