From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965083AbcLUSrA (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:47:00 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:36519 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936642AbcLUSq5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:46:57 -0500 From: =?UTF-8?q?Nicolai=20H=C3=A4hnle?= To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: =?UTF-8?q?Nicolai=20H=C3=A4hnle?= , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Maarten Lankhorst , Daniel Vetter , Chris Wilson , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: [PATCH v3 07/12] locking/ww_mutex: Notify waiters that have to back off while adding tasks to wait list Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:46:35 +0100 Message-Id: <1482346000-9927-8-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 In-Reply-To: <1482346000-9927-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com> References: <1482346000-9927-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Nicolai Hähnle While adding our task as a waiter, detect if another task should back off because of us. With this patch, we establish the invariant that the wait list contains at most one (sleeping) waiter with ww_ctx->acquired > 0, and this waiter will be the first waiter with a context. Since only waiters with ww_ctx->acquired > 0 have to back off, this allows us to be much more economical with wakeups. v2: rebase on v2 of earlier patches Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Maarten Lankhorst Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Chris Wilson Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Signed-off-by: Nicolai Hähnle --- kernel/locking/mutex.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c index 5b1ca20..ee4d152 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c @@ -601,23 +601,34 @@ void __sched ww_mutex_unlock(struct ww_mutex *lock) EXPORT_SYMBOL(ww_mutex_unlock); static inline int __sched -__ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx) +__ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter, + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx) { struct ww_mutex *ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base); struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx = READ_ONCE(ww->ctx); + struct mutex_waiter *cur; - if (!hold_ctx) - return 0; + if (hold_ctx && __ww_ctx_stamp_after(ctx, hold_ctx)) + goto deadlock; - if (__ww_ctx_stamp_after(ctx, hold_ctx)) { -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES - DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ctx->contending_lock); - ctx->contending_lock = ww; -#endif - return -EDEADLK; + /* + * If there is a waiter in front of us that has a context, then its + * stamp is earlier than ours and we must back off. + */ + cur = waiter; + list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse(cur, &lock->wait_list, list) { + if (cur->ww_ctx) + goto deadlock; } return 0; + +deadlock: +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES + DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ctx->contending_lock); + ctx->contending_lock = ww; +#endif + return -EDEADLK; } static inline int __sched @@ -660,6 +671,15 @@ __ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter, } pos = &cur->list; + + /* + * Wake up the waiter so that it gets a chance to back + * off. + */ + if (cur->ww_ctx->acquired > 0) { + debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, cur); + wake_up_process(cur->task); + } } list_add_tail(&waiter->list, pos); @@ -753,7 +773,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass, } if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx && ww_ctx->acquired > 0) { - ret = __ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp(lock, ww_ctx); + ret = __ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp(lock, &waiter, + ww_ctx); if (ret) goto err; } -- 2.7.4