From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, juri.lelli@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
jdesfossez@efficios.com, bristot@redhat.com,
peterz@infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 3/8] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Dont miss the dl_runtime/dl_period update
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 21:56:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160607200215.788266764@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20160607195635.710022345@infradead.org
[-- Attachment #1: xunlei_pang-sched_deadline_rtmutex-don_t_miss_the_dl_runtime_dl_period_update.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1690 bytes --]
From: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
Currently dl tasks will actually return at the very beginning
of rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() in !detect_deadlock cases:
if (waiter->prio == task->prio) {
if (!detect_deadlock)
goto out_unlock_pi; // out here
else
requeue = false;
}
As the deadline value of blocked deadline tasks(waiters) without
changing their sched_class(thus prio doesn't change) never changes,
this seems reasonable, but it actually misses the chance of updating
rt_mutex_waiter's "dl_runtime(period)_copy" if a waiter updates its
deadline parameters(dl_runtime, dl_period) or boosted waiter changes
to !deadline class.
Thus, force deadline task not out by adding the !dl_prio() condition.
[peterz: I should introduce more task state comparators like
rt_mutex_waiter_less, all PI prio comparisons already have this DL
exception, except this one]
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1460633827-345-7-git-send-email-xlpang@redhat.com
---
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
* enabled we continue, but stop the requeueing in the chain
* walk.
*/
- if (waiter->prio == task->prio) {
+ if (waiter->prio == task->prio && !dl_task(task)) {
if (!detect_deadlock)
goto out_unlock_pi;
else
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-07 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-07 19:56 [RFC][PATCH 0/8] PI and assorted failings Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/8] rtmutex: Deboost before waking up the top waiter Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 9:09 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 13:20 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 13:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 16:36 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-06-14 17:01 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 18:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/8] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 10:21 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 12:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 12:53 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-06-14 13:07 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 16:39 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 18:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-14 20:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 16:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-07 19:56 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-06-14 10:43 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/8] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Dont miss the dl_runtime/dl_period update Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 12:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 16:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-15 17:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/8] rtmutex: Remove rt_mutex_fastunlock() Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 16:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/8] rtmutex: Clean up Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 12:08 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 12:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 12:41 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/8] sched/rtmutex: Refactor rt_mutex_setprio() Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 13:14 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 14:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/8] sched,tracing: Update trace_sched_pi_setprio() Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-07 19:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 8/8] rtmutex: Fix PI chain order integrity Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 17:39 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-14 19:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 7:25 ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-27 12:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-27 12:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-28 9:05 ` Juri Lelli
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=20160607200215.788266764@infradead.org \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@efficios.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=xlpang@redhat.com \
/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).