From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754637AbdDMQkY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:40:24 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:56564 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751242AbdDMQkT (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:40:19 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:40:14 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, mingo@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        "open list:LOCKING PRIMITIVES" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rtmutex: deboost priority conditionally when
 rt-mutex unlock
Message-ID: <20170413124014.63177422@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20170413162113.wgtli7v5hp6ersyb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1492092174-31734-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org>
        <1492092174-31734-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org>
        <20170413143952.ty4dw5mvyfnhaqgh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20170413120925.76e22c03@gandalf.local.home>
        <20170413162113.wgtli7v5hp6ersyb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:21:13 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:09:25PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:39:52 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:02:53PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:  
> > > >  	/*
> > > > +	 * 'current' release this lock, so 'current' should be a higher prio
> > > > +	 * task than the next top waiter, unless the current prio was gotten
> > > > +	 * from this top waiter, iff so, we need to deboost 'current' after
> > > > +	 * the lock release.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (current->prio == waiter->prio)
> > > > +		deboost = true;    
> > > 
> > > This is wrong.  
> > 
> > The comment is, especially that "iff". What if current and waiter
> > happen to have the same priority? Then it too doesn't need to be
> > deboosted.  
> 
> The wrongness is in comparing prio and thinking it means anything.

Because of deadline scheduling?

-- Steve