Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:39:37 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead of mutex for the baselock |
| |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:57:08PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > +static int __sched __mutex_lock_check_stamp(struct rt_mutex *lock, > > + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx) > > +{ > > +#ifdef CONFIG_WW_MUTEX_RTMUTEX > > + struct ww_mutex *ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base.lock); > > + struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx = ACCESS_ONCE(ww->ctx); > > + > > + if (!hold_ctx) > > + return 0; > > + > > + if (unlikely(ctx == hold_ctx)) > > + return -EALREADY; > > + > > + if (ctx->stamp - hold_ctx->stamp <= LONG_MAX && > > + (ctx->stamp != hold_ctx->stamp || ctx > hold_ctx)) { > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES > > + DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ctx->contending_lock); > > + ctx->contending_lock = ww; > > +#endif > > + return -EDEADLK; > > + } > > +#endif > > + return 0; > > +} > > So IIRC this is the function that checks who gets wounded (and gets to > do the whole retry thing), right? > > So for the RT case, I think we should extend it to not (primarily) be a > FIFO thing, but also consider the priority of the tasks involved. > > Maybe a little something like: > > if (hold_ctx->task->prio < ctx->task->prio) > return -EDEADLOCK; > > before the timestamp check; although I suppose we should also add a > deadline test in case both prios are -1.
Something like rt_mutex_waiter_less(), we should have the same ordering as that.
| |