* Peter Zijlstra | 2013-11-18 15:10:21 [+0100]:
>Its get_next_timer_interrupt() that does a trylock() and only for
>PREEMPT_RT_FULL.
>
>Also; on IRC you said:
>
> "<bigeasy> I'm currently not sure if we should do
>the _irq() lock or a trylock for the wait_lock in
>rt_mutex_slowtrylock()"
>
>Which I misread and dismissed -- but yes that might actually work too
>and would be a much smaller patch. You'd only need trylock and unlock.
Yes and the patch is at the end of the mail. I also added your "lockdep:
Correctly annotate hardirq context in irq_exit()" to the -RT queue and
saw the splat. After the trylock replacement I needed something similar
for the unlock path _or_ lockdep would complain. So unless there is a
better way…
>That said, allowing such usage from actual IRQ context is iffy; suppose
>the trylock succeeds, who then is the lock owner?
>
>I suppose it would be whatever task we interrupted and boosting will
>'work' because we're non-preemptable, but still *YUCK*.
You are right, this ain't pretty. I hope this timer mess can be replaced
with something else so the whole trylock thingy can be removed.
Sebastian
--- a/include/linux/spinlock_rt.h
+++ b/include/linux/spinlock_rt.h
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ extern void __lockfunc rt_spin_lock(spin
extern unsigned long __lockfunc rt_spin_lock_trace_flags(spinlock_t *lock);
extern void __lockfunc rt_spin_lock_nested(spinlock_t *lock, int subclass);
extern void __lockfunc rt_spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock);
+extern void __lockfunc rt_spin_try_unlock(spinlock_t *lock);
extern void __lockfunc rt_spin_unlock_wait(spinlock_t *lock);
extern int __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock_irqsave(spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long
*flags);
extern int __lockfunc rt_spin_trylock_bh(spinlock_t *lock);
--- a/kernel/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/rtmutex.c
@@ -816,10 +816,8 @@ static void noinline __sched rt_spin_lo
/*
* Slow path to release a rt_mutex spin_lock style
*/
-static void noinline __sched rt_spin_lock_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+static void __sched __rt_spin_lock_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
- raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
-
debug_rt_mutex_unlock(lock);
rt_mutex_deadlock_account_unlock(current);
@@ -838,6 +836,21 @@ static void noinline __sched rt_spin_lo
rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
}
+static void noinline __sched rt_spin_lock_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+{
+ raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+ __rt_spin_lock_slowunlock(lock);
+}
+
+static void noinline __sched rt_spin_lock_try_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex
*lock)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = raw_spin_trylock(&lock->wait_lock);
+ BUG_ON(!ret);
+ __rt_spin_lock_slowunlock(lock);
+}
+
void __lockfunc rt_spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
{
rt_spin_lock_fastlock(&lock->lock, rt_spin_lock_slowlock);
@@ -868,6 +881,13 @@ void __lockfunc rt_spin_unlock(spinlock_
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(rt_spin_unlock);
+void __lockfunc rt_spin_try_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ /* NOTE: we always pass in '1' for nested, for simplicity */
+ spin_release(&lock->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+ rt_spin_lock_fastunlock(&lock->lock, rt_spin_lock_try_slowunlock);
+}
+
void __lockfunc __rt_spin_unlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
{
rt_spin_lock_fastunlock(lock, rt_spin_lock_slowunlock);
@@ -1191,7 +1211,8 @@ rt_mutex_slowtrylock(struct rt_mutex *lo
{
int ret = 0;
- raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
+ if (!raw_spin_trylock(&lock->wait_lock))
+ return ret;
init_lists(lock);
if (likely(rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current)) {
--- a/kernel/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/timer.c
@@ -1400,7 +1400,7 @@ unsigned long get_next_timer_interrupt(u
expires = base->next_timer;
}
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
- rt_spin_unlock(&base->lock);
+ rt_spin_try_unlock(&base->lock);
#else
spin_unlock(&base->lock);
#endif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
