[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1501541897-5225-6-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:58:13 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 06/10] exit: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair
There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics, and
it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock pair.
This commit therefore replaces the spin_unlock_wait() call in do_exit()
with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock(). This should be
safe from a performance perspective because the lock is a per-task lock,
and this is happening only at task-exit time.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
---
kernel/exit.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index c5548faa9f37..abfbcf66e5c0 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -819,7 +819,8 @@ void __noreturn do_exit(long code)
* Ensure that we must observe the pi_state in exit_mm() ->
* mm_release() -> exit_pi_state_list().
*/
- raw_spin_unlock_wait(&tsk->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&tsk->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->pi_lock);
if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
pr_info("note: %s[%d] exited with preempt_count %d\n",
--
2.5.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists