Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/8] rtmutex: Clean up

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	xlpang@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jdesfossez@efficios.com,
	bristot@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/8] rtmutex: Clean up
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:32:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160614123253.GH30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160614120813.GH5981@e106622-lin>

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:08:13PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > +	postunlock = rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q);
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * First unlock HB so the waiter does not spin on it once he got woken
> > +	 * up. Then wakeup the waiter by calling rt_mutex_postunlock(). Priority
> > +	 * is already adjusted and preemption is disabled to avoid inversion.
> >  	 */
> >  	spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
> >  
> > +	if (postunlock)
> > +		rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q);
> 
> I'm most probably missing something, but don't we still need to call
> wake_up_q() even when postunlock is false? IIUC, we were always doing
> that, rt_mutex_postunlock(), before this change (only calling
> preempt_enable() was conditional).

Note that rt_mutex_slowunlock() only uses wake_q on the true path. When
it returns false, it will not have placed a task to wake up.