Re: [PATCH] cleanup and remove some extra spinlocks from rtmutex
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Tue Aug 15 2006 - 02:37:41 EST
On 08/14, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> Well, we are talking about small optimizations now, moving only a few
> instructions outside the lock. Except for one of them it is correct, but
> it is worth risking stability for now?
Yes, optimization is small, but I think this cleanups the code, which is (imho)
more important. That said, I don't suggest this patch, it was a question. I stiil
can't find a time to read the code hard and convince myself I can understand it :)
Also, I think such a change opens the possibility for further cleanups.
> >--- 2.6.18-rc3/kernel/rtmutex.c~2_rtm 2006-08-13 19:07:45.000000000 +0400
> >+++ 2.6.18-rc3/kernel/rtmutex.c 2006-08-13 22:09:45.000000000 +0400
> >@@ -236,6 +236,10 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
> > goto out_unlock_pi;
> > }
> >+ /* Release the task */
> >+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> >+ put_task_struct(task);
> So you want the task to go away here and use it below?
task->pi_blocked_on != NULL, we hold task->pi_blocked_on->lock->wait_lock.
Can it go away ?
> > top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
> > /* Requeue the waiter */
> >@@ -243,10 +247,6 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
> > waiter->list_entry.prio = task->prio;
> > plist_add(&waiter->list_entry, &lock->wait_list);
> >- /* Release the task */
> >- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> >- put_task_struct(task);
> No! It is used in the line just above, so we better be sure it still
See above. If I am wrong, we can move this line
waiter->list_entry.prio = task->prio;
up, under ->pi_lock. plist_del() doesn't need a valid ->prio.
Thanks for your answer!
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/