Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead of mutex for the baselock

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:57:08PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > +static int __sched __mutex_lock_check_stamp(struct rt_mutex *lock,
> > +					    struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_WW_MUTEX_RTMUTEX
> > +	struct ww_mutex *ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base.lock);
> > +	struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx = ACCESS_ONCE(ww->ctx);
> > +
> > +	if (!hold_ctx)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	if (unlikely(ctx == hold_ctx))
> > +		return -EALREADY;
> > +
> > +	if (ctx->stamp - hold_ctx->stamp <= LONG_MAX &&
> > +	    (ctx->stamp != hold_ctx->stamp || ctx > hold_ctx)) {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
> > +		DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ctx->contending_lock);
> > +		ctx->contending_lock = ww;
> > +#endif
> > +		return -EDEADLK;
> > +	}
> > +#endif
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> So IIRC this is the function that checks who gets wounded (and gets to
> do the whole retry thing), right?
> 
> So for the RT case, I think we should extend it to not (primarily) be a
> FIFO thing, but also consider the priority of the tasks involved.
> 
> Maybe a little something like:
> 
> 	if (hold_ctx->task->prio < ctx->task->prio)
> 		return -EDEADLOCK;
> 
> before the timestamp check; although I suppose we should also add a
> deadline test in case both prios are -1.

Something like rt_mutex_waiter_less(), we should have the same ordering
as that.
--
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/