[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1498226839.31539.13.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 16:07:19 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch-rt v2] rtmutex: Fix lock stealing logic
On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 09:33 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> struct task_struct *task,
> > @@ -886,20 +901,16 @@ static int __try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct
> > */
> > if (waiter) {
> > /*
> > - * If waiter is not the highest priority waiter of
> > - * @lock, give up.
> > + * If waiter is not the highest priority waiter of @lock,
> > + * or its peer when lateral steal is allowed, give up.
> > */
> > - if (waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
> > - /* XXX rt_mutex_waiter_less() ? */
> > + if (!rt_mutex_steal(lock, waiter, mode))
> > return 0;
> > - }
> > -
> > /*
> > * We can acquire the lock. Remove the waiter from the
> > * lock waiters tree.
> > */
> > rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
> > -
>
> I liked that space.
I like minus signs in diffstat, that one was a freebee. Maintainers
can revive it if they like, or I can post a V3 with it revived as well
as s/rt_mutex_steal/rt_mutex_claim.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists