lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RT] locking/rtmutex: don't drop the wait_lock twice
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:43:02 +0200
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On 2017-09-21 12:31:05 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> > > index f03876322d4a..79f49d73e4d0 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> > > @@ -2281,7 +2281,6 @@ int __rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
> > > raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
> > > if (task->pi_blocked_on) {
> > > raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
> > > - raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
> >
> > Hmm, before this patch, irqs are enabled when returning with -EAGAIN.
> > But now they are not. Should that be:
> >
> > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&taks->pi_lock);
> >
> > or is there something that changes this?
>
> There is something else. Before that futex rework there was just
> rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() and it did lock & unlock of ->wait_lock.
> This no longer the case after the rework. So now the caller does this.
>

So this actually fixes two bugs then? Anyway, probably want to add that
in the change log to explain why it is ok to change the irq semantics
here too.

Thanks!

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-21 19:35    [W:0.053 / U:1.384 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site