[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140610134745.668c8a4e@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:47:45 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: 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>, Brad Mouring <bmouring@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 7/7] rtmutex: Avoid pointless requeueing in the
deadlock detection chain walk
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:41:39 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On the loop back around, have something like:
> >
> > if (top_waiter) {
> > if (!task_has_pi_waiters(task))
> > goto out_unlock_pi;
>
> The task has at least one pi waiter.
>
> > if (!requeue &&
> > top_waiter != task_top_pi_waiter(task)) {
> > if (!detect_deadlock)
> > goto out_unlock_pi;
> > else
> > requeue = false;
> > }
>
> Errm? if requeue is off we are in deadlock detection chainwalk
> mode. So all we care about is whether task is blocked on
> next_lock or not.
Actually that was a typo on my part. That should have been:
if (requeue &&
...
As we don't need to read the task_top_pi_waiter() again.
-- 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