[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160823125619.GC10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:56:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid
starvation
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:46:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -573,8 +600,14 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
> schedule_preempt_disabled();
> spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>
> + if (__mutex_owner(lock) == current)
> + break;
> +
> if (__mutex_trylock(lock))
> break;
> +
> + if (__mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter))
> + __mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> }
> __set_task_state(task, TASK_RUNNING);
>
And 'obviously' we can add a spin-on-owner loop in there as well, as
Waiman's patches did, but I didn't bother pulling that in for now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists