On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:56:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:53:12AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:Something like so?
There might be other details, but this is the one that stood out.I think this also does the wrong thing for use_ww_ctx.
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 0551c219c40e..070a0ac34aa7 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -512,6 +512,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
struct task_struct *task = current;
struct mutex_waiter waiter;
unsigned long flags;
+ bool acquired;
int ret;
preempt_disable();
@@ -543,6 +544,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
lock_contended(&lock->dep_map, ip);
for (;;) {
+ acquired = false;
/*
* Lets try to take the lock again - this is needed even if
* we get here for the first time (shortly after failing to
@@ -577,7 +579,16 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
/* didn't get the lock, go to sleep: */
spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
schedule_preempt_disabled();
+
+ if (mutex_is_locked(lock))
+ acquired = mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx);
+
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
+
+ if (acquired) {
+ atomic_set(&lock->count, -1);
+ break;
+ }
}
__set_task_state(task, TASK_RUNNING);
@@ -587,6 +598,9 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
atomic_set(&lock->count, 0);
debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
+ if (acquired)
+ goto unlock;
+
skip_wait:
/* got the lock - cleanup and rejoice! */
lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, ip);
@@ -597,6 +611,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
ww_mutex_set_context_slowpath(ww, ww_ctx);
}
+unlock:
spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
preempt_enable();
return 0;