Commit 41719b03 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Ingo Molnar

mutex: preemption fixes

The problem is that dropping the spinlock right before schedule is a voluntary
preemption point and can cause a schedule, right after which we schedule again.

Fix this inefficiency by keeping preemption disabled until we schedule, do this
by explicity disabling preemption and providing a schedule() variant that
assumes preemption is already disabled.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent 93d81d1a
...@@ -328,6 +328,7 @@ extern signed long schedule_timeout(signed long timeout); ...@@ -328,6 +328,7 @@ extern signed long schedule_timeout(signed long timeout);
extern signed long schedule_timeout_interruptible(signed long timeout); extern signed long schedule_timeout_interruptible(signed long timeout);
extern signed long schedule_timeout_killable(signed long timeout); extern signed long schedule_timeout_killable(signed long timeout);
extern signed long schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(signed long timeout); extern signed long schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(signed long timeout);
asmlinkage void __schedule(void);
asmlinkage void schedule(void); asmlinkage void schedule(void);
struct nsproxy; struct nsproxy;
......
...@@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass, ...@@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
struct mutex_waiter waiter; struct mutex_waiter waiter;
unsigned long flags; unsigned long flags;
preempt_disable();
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
debug_mutex_lock_common(lock, &waiter); debug_mutex_lock_common(lock, &waiter);
...@@ -170,13 +171,14 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass, ...@@ -170,13 +171,14 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter); debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
preempt_enable();
return -EINTR; return -EINTR;
} }
__set_task_state(task, state); __set_task_state(task, state);
/* didnt get the lock, go to sleep: */ /* didnt get the lock, go to sleep: */
spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
schedule(); __schedule();
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
} }
...@@ -193,6 +195,7 @@ done: ...@@ -193,6 +195,7 @@ done:
spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter); debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
preempt_enable();
return 0; return 0;
} }
......
...@@ -4538,15 +4538,13 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev) ...@@ -4538,15 +4538,13 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
/* /*
* schedule() is the main scheduler function. * schedule() is the main scheduler function.
*/ */
asmlinkage void __sched schedule(void) asmlinkage void __sched __schedule(void)
{ {
struct task_struct *prev, *next; struct task_struct *prev, *next;
unsigned long *switch_count; unsigned long *switch_count;
struct rq *rq; struct rq *rq;
int cpu; int cpu;
need_resched:
preempt_disable();
cpu = smp_processor_id(); cpu = smp_processor_id();
rq = cpu_rq(cpu); rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
rcu_qsctr_inc(cpu); rcu_qsctr_inc(cpu);
...@@ -4603,7 +4601,13 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible: ...@@ -4603,7 +4601,13 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
if (unlikely(reacquire_kernel_lock(current) < 0)) if (unlikely(reacquire_kernel_lock(current) < 0))
goto need_resched_nonpreemptible; goto need_resched_nonpreemptible;
}
asmlinkage void __sched schedule(void)
{
need_resched:
preempt_disable();
__schedule();
preempt_enable_no_resched(); preempt_enable_no_resched();
if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_RESCHED))) if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_RESCHED)))
goto need_resched; goto need_resched;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment