linux-kernel - [tip:locking/core] locking/rtmutex: Optimize setting task running after being blocked

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:38:44 -0800
From:	tip-bot for Davidlohr Bueso <tipbot@...or.com>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dbueso@...e.de,
	tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	dave@...olabs.net, mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: [tip:locking/core] locking/rtmutex:
  Optimize setting task running after being blocked

Commit-ID:  afffc6c1805d98e08e778cddb644a666e78cfcfd
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/afffc6c1805d98e08e778cddb644a666e78cfcfd
Author:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
AuthorDate: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 22:16:24 -0800
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 07:57:42 +0100

locking/rtmutex: Optimize setting task running after being blocked

We explicitly mark the task running after returning from
a __rt_mutex_slowlock() call, which does the actual sleeping
via wait-wake-trylocking. As such, this patch does two things:

(1) refactors the code so that setting current to TASK_RUNNING
    is done by __rt_mutex_slowlock(), and not by the callers. The
    downside to this is that it becomes a bit unclear when at what
    point we block. As such I've added a comment that the task
    blocks when calling __rt_mutex_slowlock() so readers can figure
    out when it is running again.

(2) relaxes setting current's state through __set_current_state(),
    instead of it's more expensive barrier alternative. There was no
    need for the implied barrier as we're obviously not planning on
    blocking.

Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1422857784.18096.1.camel@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 7c98873..3059bc2f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1130,6 +1130,7 @@ __rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
 		set_current_state(state);
 	}
 
+	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 	return ret;
 }
 
@@ -1188,10 +1189,9 @@ rt_mutex_slowlock(struct rt_mutex *lock, int state,
 	ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, &waiter, current, chwalk);
 
 	if (likely(!ret))
+		/* sleep on the mutex */
 		ret = __rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, state, timeout, &waiter);
 
-	set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
-
 	if (unlikely(ret)) {
 		remove_waiter(lock, &waiter);
 		rt_mutex_handle_deadlock(ret, chwalk, &waiter);
@@ -1626,10 +1626,9 @@ int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 
 	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
 
+	/* sleep on the mutex */
 	ret = __rt_mutex_slowlock(lock, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, to, waiter);
 
-	set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
-
 	if (unlikely(ret))
 		remove_waiter(lock, waiter);
 
--
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/