[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1501541897-5225-4-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:58:11 -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>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.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 04/10] sched: 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_task_dead() with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock().
This should be safe from a performance perspective because the lock is
this tasks ->pi_lock, and this is called only after the task exits.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
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>
[ paulmck: Replace leading smp_mb() with smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
courtesy of Arnd Bergmann's noting its odd location. ]
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 17c667b427b4..1179111d82a1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3352,8 +3352,9 @@ void __noreturn do_task_dead(void)
* To avoid it, we have to wait for releasing tsk->pi_lock which
* is held by try_to_wake_up()
*/
- smp_mb();
- raw_spin_unlock_wait(¤t->pi_lock);
+ smp_mb__before_spinlock();
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
/* Causes final put_task_struct in finish_task_switch(): */
__set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);
--
2.5.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists