On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:08:13PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > + postunlock = rt_mutex_futex_unlock(&pi_state->pi_mutex, &wake_q); > > > > /* > > * First unlock HB so the waiter does not spin on it once he got woken > > + * up. Then wakeup the waiter by calling rt_mutex_postunlock(). Priority > > + * is already adjusted and preemption is disabled to avoid inversion. > > */ > > spin_unlock(&hb->lock); > > > > + if (postunlock) > > + rt_mutex_postunlock(&wake_q); > > I'm most probably missing something, but don't we still need to call > wake_up_q() even when postunlock is false? IIUC, we were always doing > that, rt_mutex_postunlock(), before this change (only calling > preempt_enable() was conditional).
Note that rt_mutex_slowunlock() only uses wake_q on the true path. When it returns false, it will not have placed a task to wake up.
