[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160628090553.GO5981@e106622-lin>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:05:53 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
xlpang@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jdesfossez@...icios.com,
bristot@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/8] rtmutex: Fix PI chain order integrity
On 27/06/16 14:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 08:25:07AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > I guess it's not that likely, but yes it could potentially happen that a
> > waiter is optimistically spinning, depletes its runtime, gets throttled
> > and then replenished when still spinning. Maybe it doesn't really make
> > sense continuing spinning in this situation, but I guess things get
> > really complicated. :-/
> >
> > Anyway, as said, I think this patch is OK. Maybe we want to add a
> > comment just to remember what situation can cause an issue if we don't
> > do this? Patch changelog would be OK as well for such a comment IMHO.
>
>
> OK, so I went to write a simple comment and ended up with the below :/
>
> While writing the comment I noticed two issues:
>
> - we update the waiter order fields while the entry is still enqueued
> on the pi_waiters tree, which is also sorted by these exact fields.
>
> - another one of these pure ->prio comparisons
>
> Please double check, there be dragons here.
>
Reviewed-and-tested-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
And, FWIW, you can obviously keep this if you are going to squash this
into 8/8.
Best,
- Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists