Messages in this thread | | | From | "Connor O'Brien" <> | Date | Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:43:23 -0700 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] locking/ww_mutex: Remove wakeups from under mutex::wait_lock |
| |
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 9:01 AM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 10/3/22 17:44, Connor O'Brien wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h > > index 56f139201f24..dfc174cd96c6 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h > > +++ b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h > > @@ -161,6 +161,11 @@ static inline void lockdep_assert_wait_lock_held(struct rt_mutex *lock) > > > > #endif /* WW_RT */ > > > > +void ww_ctx_wake(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx) > > +{ > > + wake_up_q(&ww_ctx->wake_q); > > +} > > + > > /* > > * Wait-Die: > > * The newer transactions are killed when: > > @@ -284,7 +289,7 @@ __ww_mutex_die(struct MUTEX *lock, struct MUTEX_WAITER *waiter, > > #ifndef WW_RT > > debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter); > > #endif > > - wake_up_process(waiter->task); > > + wake_q_add(&ww_ctx->wake_q, waiter->task); > > } > > > > return true; > > @@ -331,7 +336,7 @@ static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct MUTEX *lock, > > * wakeup pending to re-read the wounded state. > > */ > > if (owner != current) > > - wake_up_process(owner); > > + wake_q_add(&ww_ctx->wake_q, owner); > > > > return true; > > } > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > > index ee28253c9ac0..617e737392be 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > @@ -1013,6 +1013,13 @@ void wake_up_q(struct wake_q_head *head) > > wake_up_process(task); > > put_task_struct(task); > > } > > + /* > > + * XXX connoro: seems this is needed now that ww_ctx_wake() passes in a > > + * wake_q_head that is embedded in struct ww_acquire_ctx rather than > > + * declared locally. > > + */ > > + head->first = node; > > + head->lastp = &head->first; > > } > > > > You shouldn't do wake_q_init() here in wake_up_q(). Instead, you should > do it in ww_ctx_wake() right after the wake_up_q() call.
Thanks, will fix this in the next version.
> > Cheers, > Longman >
| |