[PATCH 01/11] locking/mutex: Dont assume TASK_RUNNING

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: peterz-mutex_lock-vs-task_state.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1196 bytes --]

We're going to make might_sleep() test for TASK_RUNNING, because
blocking without TASK_RUNNING will destroy the task state by setting
it to TASK_RUNNING.

There are a few occasions where its 'valid' to call blocking
primitives (and mutex_lock in particular) and not have TASK_RUNNING,
typically such cases are right before we set TASK_RUNNING anyhow.

Robustify the code by not assuming this; this has the beneficial side
effect of allowing optional code emission for fixing the above
might_sleep() false positives.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 kernel/locking/mutex.c |    8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -378,8 +378,14 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct
 	 * reschedule now, before we try-lock the mutex. This avoids getting
 	 * scheduled out right after we obtained the mutex.
 	 */
-	if (need_resched())
+	if (need_resched()) {
+		/*
+		 * We _should_ have TASK_RUNNING here, but just in case
+		 * we do not, make it so, otherwise we might get stuck.
+		 */
+		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 		schedule_preempt_disabled();
+	}
 
 	return false;
 }