linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:09:25 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170413120925.76e22c03@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170413143952.ty4dw5mvyfnhaqgh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

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.

But that said, we currently perform the deboost unconditionally. I
can't think of a case where current->prio != waiter->prio where we
should perform the deboost, because current->prio should always be <=
waiter->prio (where lower prio means higher priority). Maybe I'm missing
something.

-- Steve

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-13 16:09 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 ` [PATCH 2/3] rtmutex: deboost priority conditionally when rt-mutex unlock Alex Shi
2017-04-13 14:23   ` Sebastian Siewior
2017-04-13 14:39   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-13 16:09     ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
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=20170413120925.76e22c03@gandalf.local.home \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=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=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).