lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -v11][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning
FromPeter Zijlstra <>
DateWed, 14 Jan 2009 18:22:36 +0100
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 18:18 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > @@ -173,21 +237,21 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, 
> >  			spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > 
> >  			debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
> > +			preempt_enable();
> >  			return -EINTR;
> >  		}
> >  		__set_task_state(task, state);
> > 
> >  		/* didnt get the lock, go to sleep: */
> >  		spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> > -		schedule();
> > +		__schedule();> > Why does this need to do a preempt-disabled schedule? After we schedule
> away, the next task can do arbitrary things or reschedule itself, so if
> we have not anticipated such a condition here, then I can't see what
> __schedule protects. At least a comment is in order?

From:
http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-adaptive-spin/mutex-preempt.patch

Subject: mutex: preemption fixes
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date: Wed Jan 14 15:36:26 CET 2009

The problem is that dropping the spinlock right before schedule is a voluntary
preemption point and can cause a schedule, right after which we schedule again.

Fix this inefficiency by keeping preemption disabled until we schedule, do this
by explicitly disabling preemption and providing a schedule() variant that
assumes preemption is already disabled.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>

> Pity to add the call overhead to schedule just for this case.

Good point, seeing any way around that?

>  BTW. __schedule shouldn't need to be asmlinkage?

TBH I've no clue, probably not, Ingo?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-14 18:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2008