On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 09:50:09AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 06:38 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > The current approach to RCU priority boosting uses an rt_mutex strictly
> > for its priority-boosting side effects. The rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked()
> > function is used by the booster to initialize the lock as held by the
> > boostee. The booster then uses rt_mutex_lock() to acquire this rt_mutex,
> > which priority-boosts the boostee. When the boostee reaches the end
> > of its outermost RCU read-side critical section, it checks a field in
> > its task structure to see whether it has been boosted, and, if so, uses
> > rt_mutex_unlock() to release the rt_mutex. The booster can then go on
> > to boost the next task that is blocking the current RCU grace period.
> >
> > But reasonable implementations of rt_mutex_unlock() might result in the
> > boostee referencing the rt_mutex's data after releasing it.
>
> XXXX_unlock(lock_ptr) should not reference to the lock_ptr after it has
> unlocked the lock. (*)
> So I think this patch is unneeded. Although its adding overhead is at
> slow-patch,
> but it adds REVIEW-burden.
>
> And although the original rt_mutex_unlock() violates the rule(*) when the
> fast-cmpxchg-path,
> but it is fixed now.
>
> It is the lock-subsystem's responsible to do this. I prefer to add the
> wait_for_complete()
> stuff until the future when the boostee needs to re-access the booster after
> rt_mutex_unlock()
> instead of now.
It is on my list to remove. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
