linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list:LOCKING PRIMITIVES)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] rtmutex: deboost priority conditionally when rt-mutex unlock
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 22:02:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1492092174-31734-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1492092174-31734-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org>

The rt_mutex_fastunlock() will deboost 'current' task when it should be.
but the rt_mutex_slowunlock() function will set the 'deboost' flag
unconditionally. That cause some unnecessary priority adjustment.

'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.

Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 6edc32e..05ff685 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -1037,10 +1037,11 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock,
  *
  * Called with lock->wait_lock held and interrupts disabled.
  */
-static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
+static bool mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
 				    struct rt_mutex *lock)
 {
 	struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter;
+	bool deboost = false;
 
 	raw_spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
 
@@ -1055,6 +1056,15 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
 	rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(current, waiter);
 
 	/*
+	 * '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;
+
+	/*
 	 * As we are waking up the top waiter, and the waiter stays
 	 * queued on the lock until it gets the lock, this lock
 	 * obviously has waiters. Just set the bit here and this has
@@ -1067,6 +1077,8 @@ static void mark_wakeup_next_waiter(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
 	raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);
 
 	wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
+
+	return deboost;
 }
 
 /*
@@ -1336,6 +1348,7 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 					struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
 {
 	unsigned long flags;
+	bool deboost = false;
 
 	/* irqsave required to support early boot calls */
 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
@@ -1389,12 +1402,12 @@ static bool __sched rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
 	 *
 	 * Queue the next waiter for wakeup once we release the wait_lock.
 	 */
-	mark_wakeup_next_waiter(wake_q, lock);
+	deboost = mark_wakeup_next_waiter(wake_q, lock);
 
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 
 	/* check PI boosting */
-	return true;
+	return deboost;
 }
 
 /*
-- 
1.9.1

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-04-13 14:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-13 14:02 [RFC PATCH 0/3] rtmutex comments update and trival fix Alex Shi
2017-04-13 14:02 ` [PATCH 1/3] rtmutex: comments update Alex Shi
2017-04-13 15:54   ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-14  8:52     ` Alex Shi
2017-04-14 18:43       ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-18  8:38         ` Alex Shi
2017-04-13 16:00   ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-13 14:02 ` Alex Shi [this message]
2017-04-13 14:23   ` [PATCH 2/3] rtmutex: deboost priority conditionally when rt-mutex unlock Sebastian Siewior
2017-04-13 14:39   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-13 16:09     ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-13 16:21       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-13 16:40         ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-13 16:51           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-13 14:02 ` [PATCH 3/3] rtmutex: remove unnecessary adjust prio Alex Shi
2017-04-13 16:15   ` Steven Rostedt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1492092174-31734-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org \
    --to=alex.shi@linaro.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).