Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: 2.6.13-rc6-rt9 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:00:45 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 02:39 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Ingo, can't you get rt.c to be more confusing. I mean it is too simple. > We need to add a few more underscores here and there :-) Seriously, > that rt.c is mind boggling. It was nice before, now it is just screaming > for a cleanup (come now, do we really need the four underscores?). Same > with latency.c.
Ingo,
Here's one example of cleaning up rt.c. I like an extra parameter instead of having two functions that are exactly the same except for one line. I'll probably submit more.
I haven't thought of a good way yet to solve the race condition with dependent sleeper. (Except by turning off CONFIG_WAKEUP_TIMING :-)
-- Steve
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Index: linux_realtime_ernie/kernel/rt.c =================================================================== --- linux_realtime_ernie/kernel/rt.c (revision 296) +++ linux_realtime_ernie/kernel/rt.c (working copy) @@ -1331,8 +1331,7 @@ FREE_WAITER(&waiter); } -static void __up_mutex_waiter_savestate(struct rt_mutex *lock __EIP_DECL__); -static void __up_mutex_waiter_nosavestate(struct rt_mutex *lock __EIP_DECL__); +static void __up_mutex_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock, int save_state __EIP_DECL__); /* * release the lock: @@ -1361,12 +1360,9 @@ if (plist_empty(&lock->wait_list)) check_pi_list_empty(lock, lock_owner(lock)); #endif - if (unlikely(!plist_empty(&lock->wait_list))) { - if (save_state) - __up_mutex_waiter_savestate(lock __EIP__); - else - __up_mutex_waiter_nosavestate(lock __EIP__); - } else + if (unlikely(!plist_empty(&lock->wait_list))) + __up_mutex_waiter(lock, save_state __EIP__); + else lock->owner = NULL; __raw_spin_unlock(&pi_lock); __raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); @@ -1759,7 +1755,7 @@ return __down_trylock(&rwsem->lock __CALLER0__); } -static void __up_mutex_waiter_nosavestate(struct rt_mutex *lock __EIP_DECL__) +static void __up_mutex_waiter(struct rt_mutex *lock, int save_state __EIP_DECL__) { struct thread_info *old_owner_ti, *new_owner_ti; struct task_struct *old_owner, *new_owner; @@ -1790,43 +1786,12 @@ new_owner->pending_owner = lock; } #endif - wake_up_process(new_owner); + if (save_state) + wake_up_process_mutex(new_owner); + else + wake_up_process(new_owner); } -static void __up_mutex_waiter_savestate(struct rt_mutex *lock __EIP_DECL__) -{ - struct thread_info *old_owner_ti, *new_owner_ti; - struct task_struct *old_owner, *new_owner; - struct rt_mutex_waiter *w; - int prio; - - old_owner_ti = lock_owner(lock); - old_owner = old_owner_ti->task; - new_owner_ti = pick_new_owner(lock, old_owner_ti, 1 __EIP__); - new_owner = new_owner_ti->task; - - /* - * If the owner got priority-boosted then restore it - * to the previous priority (or to the next highest prio - * waiter's priority): - */ - prio = old_owner->normal_prio; - if (unlikely(!plist_empty(&old_owner->pi_waiters))) { - w = plist_first_entry(&old_owner->pi_waiters, struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_list); - if (w->ti->task->prio < prio) - prio = w->ti->task->prio; - } - if (unlikely(prio != old_owner->prio)) - pi_setprio(lock, old_owner, prio); -#ifdef CAPTURE_LOCK - if (lock != &kernel_sem.lock) { - new_owner->rt_flags |= RT_PENDOWNER; - new_owner->pending_owner = lock; - } -#endif - wake_up_process_mutex(new_owner); -} - /* * Do owner check too: */
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |