lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: RFC: mutex: hung tasks on SMP platforms with asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
    On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Will Deacon wrote:

    > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 07:09:02PM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
    > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Will Deacon wrote:
    > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:57:33PM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
    > > > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
    > > > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h b/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
    > > > > index 580a6d35c7..44a66c99c8 100644
    > > > > --- a/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
    > > > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
    > > > > @@ -25,8 +25,11 @@
    > > > > static inline void
    > > > > __mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
    > > > > {
    > > > > - if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1))
    > > > > - fail_fn(count);
    > > > > + if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1)) {
    > > > > + /* Mark lock contention explicitly */
    > > > > + if (likely(atomic_xchg(count, -1) != 1))
    > > > > + fail_fn(count);
    > > > > + }
    > > > > }
    > > > >
    > > > > /**
    > > >
    > > > Doesn't this mean that we're no longer just swapping 0 for a 0 if the lock
    > > > was taken, therefore needlessly sending the current owner down the slowpath
    > > > on unlock?
    > >
    > > If the lock was taken, this means the count was either 0 or -1. If it
    > > was 1 then we just put a 0 there and we own it. But if the cound was 0
    > > then we should store -1 instead, which is what the inner xchg does. If
    > > the count was already -1 then we store -1 back. That more closely mimic
    > > what the atomic dec does which is what we want.
    >
    > Ok, I just wasn't sure that marking the lock contended was required when it
    > was previously locked, given that we'll drop into spinning on the owner
    > anyway.

    That's fine, and the owner will put 1 back when it unlocks it as well as
    processing the wait queue which is what we need.

    > I'll add a commit message to the above and re-post if that's ok?

    Sure. Don't forget to update __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval() as well.


    Nicolas


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-08-10 02:41    [W:0.051 / U:62.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site