Re: pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow)

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> Howard Chu wrote:
> > Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > OK, you believe that the mutex *must* be granted to a blocking thread
> > > at the time of the unlock. I don't think this is unreasonable from the
> > > wording (because it does not seem to be completely unambiguous 
> > > english),
> > > however think about this -
> > >
> > > A realtime system with tasks A and B, A has an RT scheduling 
> > > priority of
> > > 1, and B is 2. A and B are both runnable, so A is running. A takes a 
> > > mutex
> > > then sleeps, B runs and ends up blocked on the mutex. A wakes up and at
> > > some point it drops the mutex and then tries to take it again.
> > >
> > > What happens?
> > >
> > > I haven't programmed realtime systems of any complexity, but I'd 
> > > think it
> > > would be undesirable if A were to block and allow B to run at this 
> > > point.
> >
> >
> > But why does A take the mutex in the first place? Presumably because 
> > it is about to execute a critical section. And also presumably, A 
> > will not release the mutex until it no longer has anything critical 
> > to do; certainly it could hold it longer if it needed to.
> >
> > If A still needed the mutex, why release it and reacquire it, why not 
> > just hold onto it? The fact that it is being released is significant.
>
> Regardless of why, that is just the simplest scenario I could think
> of that would give us a test case. However...
>
> Why not hold onto it? We sometimes do this in the kernel if we need
> to take a lock that is incompatible with the lock already being held,
> or if we discover we need to take a mutex which nests outside our
> currently held lock in other paths. Ie to prevent deadlock.

In those cases, A cannot retake the mutex anyway. I.e., you just said 
that you released the first mutex because you want to acquire a 
different one. So those cases don't fit this example very well.

> Another reason might be because we will be running for a very long
> time without requiring the lock.

And again in this case, A should not be immediately reacquiring the lock 
if it doesn't actually need it.

> Or we might like to release it because
> we expect a higher priority process to take it.

And in this case, the expected behavior is the same as I've been pursuing.

--
 -- Howard Chu
 Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
 Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc
 OpenLDAP Core Team            http://www.openldap.org/project/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/