lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC][RT][PATCH 3/4] rtmutex: Revert Optimize rt lock wakeup
From
Date
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 14:06 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:

>
> if (adaptive_wait(&waiter, orig_owner))
> sleep = 1;
> else
> sleep = 0;
>
> if (sleep)


> raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> saved_state = rt_set_current_block_state(saved_state);
> if (!lock->owner && &waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock))
> sleep = 0;
> raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);

I may be able to remove the above locks and replace it with:

saved_state = rt_set_current_blocked_state(saved_state);
if (orig_owner == rt_mutex_owner(lock))
schedule_rt_mutex(lock);
-- Steve


> if (sleep)
> schedule_rt_mutex(lock);
> saved_state = rt_restore_current_blocked_state(saved_state);
> }
>
> Otherwise we can risk the wakeup_next_waiter() missing the wakeup.
>
> To clarify, we want the adaptive_wait() to run as TASK_RUNNING. Then if
> we must sleep, then we must set the state to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, test
> again if we can still the lock, and if not then sleep. Otherwise, if a
> wakeup happens just before we set the state to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE,
> then we miss the wake up all together.
>
> I can do this change, and see what impact it makes.
>
> I'm also curious if this ever worked? If it did not, then are you sure
> your tests that show the benefit of it was true. I don't have a large
> scale box at my disposal ATM, so I can only see what this does on 4way
> machines.
>
> -- Steve
>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-03 21:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans