linux-kernel - [patch V4 44/68] locking/ww_mutex: Abstract waiter enqueueing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210811121416.773752181@linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 14:23:25 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: [patch V4 44/68] locking/ww_mutex: Abstract waiter enqueueing

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>

The upcoming rtmutex based ww_mutex needs a different handling for
enqueueing a waiter. Split it out into a helper function.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

---
 kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h |   19 +++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
---
--- a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
@@ -44,6 +44,15 @@ static inline struct mutex_waiter *
 	return w;
 }
 
+static inline void
+__ww_waiter_add(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter, struct mutex_waiter *pos)
+{
+	struct list_head *p = &lock->wait_list;
+	if (pos)
+		p = &pos->list;
+	__mutex_add_waiter(lock, waiter, p);
+}
+
 /*
  * Wait-Die:
  *   The newer transactions are killed when:
@@ -337,12 +346,11 @@ static inline int
 		      struct mutex *lock,
 		      struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
 {
-	struct mutex_waiter *cur;
-	struct list_head *pos;
+	struct mutex_waiter *cur, *pos = NULL;
 	bool is_wait_die;
 
 	if (!ww_ctx) {
-		__mutex_add_waiter(lock, waiter, &lock->wait_list);
+		__ww_waiter_add(lock, waiter, NULL);
 		return 0;
 	}
 
@@ -355,7 +363,6 @@ static inline int
 	 * never die here, but they are sorted in stamp order and
 	 * may wound the lock holder.
 	 */
-	pos = &lock->wait_list;
 	for (cur = __ww_waiter_last(lock); cur;
 	     cur = __ww_waiter_prev(lock, cur)) {
 
@@ -378,13 +385,13 @@ static inline int
 			break;
 		}
 
-		pos = &cur->list;
+		pos = cur;
 
 		/* Wait-Die: ensure younger waiters die. */
 		__ww_mutex_die(lock, cur, ww_ctx);
 	}
 
-	__mutex_add_waiter(lock, waiter, pos);
+	__ww_waiter_add(lock, waiter, pos);
 
 	/*
 	 * Wound-Wait: if we're blocking on a mutex owned by a younger context,