Re: [patch 6/6] rtmutex: Avoid pointless requeueing in the deadlock detection chain walk

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 27 May 2014, Jason Low wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > @@ -440,32 +452,41 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
> >         get_task_struct(task);
> >         raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> >
> > -       if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
> > -               /*
> > -                * The waiter became the top waiter on the
> > -                * lock. Remove the previous top waiter from the tasks
> > -                * pi waiters list and add waiter to it.
> > -                */
> > -               rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(task, prerequeue_top_waiter);
> > -               rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, waiter);
> > -               __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
> > -
> > -       } else if (prerequeue_top_waiter == waiter) {
> > -               /*
> > -                * The waiter was the top waiter on the lock. Remove
> > -                * waiter from the tasks pi waiters list and add the
> > -                * new top waiter to it.
> > -                */
> > -               rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(task, waiter);
> > -               waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
> > -               rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, waiter);
> > -               __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
> > -
> > -       } else {
> > -               /*
> > -                * Nothing changed. No need to do any priority
> > -                * adjustment.
> > -                */
> > +       /*
> > +        * In case we are just following the lock chain for deadlock
> > +        * detection we can avoid the whole requeue and priority
> > +        * adjustment business.
> > +        */
> > +       if (requeue) {
> > +               if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
> > +                       /*
> > +                        * The waiter became the top waiter on the
> > +                        * lock. Remove the previous top waiter from
> > +                        * the tasks pi waiters list and add waiter to
> > +                        * it.
> > +                        */
> > +                       rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(task, prerequeue_top_waiter);
> > +                       rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, waiter);
> > +                       __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
> > +
> > +               } else if (prerequeue_top_waiter == waiter) {
> > +                       /*
> > +                        * The waiter was the top waiter on the
> > +                        * lock. Remove waiter from the tasks pi
> > +                        * waiters list and add the new top waiter to
> > +                        * it.
> > +                        */
> > +                       rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(task, waiter);
> > +                       waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
> > +                       rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, waiter);
> > +                       __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
> > +
> > +               } else {
> > +                       /*
> > +                        * Nothing changed. No need to do any priority
> > +                        * adjustment.
> > +                        */
> > +               }
> >         }
> >
> >         raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> 
> In the above case, could we go 1 step further and avoid taking the pi
> lock as well?
> 
>         if (requeue) {
>                 raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> 
>                 if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
>                         /*
>                          * The waiter became the top waiter on the
>                          * lock. Remove the previous top waiter from
>                          * the tasks pi waiters list and add waiter to
>                          * it.
>                          */
>                         rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(task, prerequeue_top_waiter);
>                         rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, waiter);
>                         __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
> 
>                 } else if (prerequeue_top_waiter == waiter) {
>                         /*
>                          * The waiter was the top waiter on the
>                          * lock. Remove waiter from the tasks pi
>                          * waiters list and add the new top waiter to
>                          * it.
>                          */
>                         rt_mutex_dequeue_pi(task, waiter);
>                         waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
>                         rt_mutex_enqueue_pi(task, waiter);
>                         __rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task);
> 
>                 } else {
>                         /*
>                          * Nothing changed. No need to do any priority
>                          * adjustment.
>                          */
>                 }
> 
>                 raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
>         }

Indeed.

 
--
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/