Re: [RFC,PATCH] mutex: mutex_is_owner() helper

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 18:19 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> BTW, I was thinking of a mutex_yield() implementation, but could not
> cook it without hard thinking, maybe you already have some nice
> implementation ?

Why? Yield sets off alarm bells, since 99.9%, and possibly more, of its
uses are wrong.

> int mutex_yield(struct mutex *lock)
> {
>         int ret = 0;
> 
>         if (mutex_needbreak(lock) || should_resched()) {
>                 mutex_unlock(lock); 
>                 __cond_resched();
>                 mutex_lock(lock);
>                 ret = 1;
>         }
>         return ret;
> } 

That reads like it should be called cond_resched_mutex(), except that
the should_resched() thing seems daft (but maybe it makes sense for
silly preemption modes like voluntary).

iirc we actually have something similar in -rt in order to implement the
lock-break for the rt-mutex based spinlocks, we set ->needbreak when a
higher priority task contends -- a policy for regular mutexes might be
'interesting' though.

As to your 'debug' helper that started this thread, doesn't
lockdep_assert_held() work for you?

--
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/