Re: [PATCH] cleanup and remove some extra spinlocks from rtmutex

[Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@gogglemail.com>]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 08/14, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> > Well, we are talking about small optimizations now, moving only a few
> > instructions outside the lock. Except for one of them it is correct, but
> > it is worth risking stability for now?
>
> Yes, optimization is small, but I think this cleanups the code, which is (imho)
> more important. That said, I don't suggest this patch, it was a question. I stiil
> can't find a time to read the code hard and convince myself I can understand it :)
>
> Also, I think such a change opens the possibility for further cleanups.
>
> > > --- 2.6.18-rc3/kernel/rtmutex.c~2_rtm	2006-08-13 19:07:45.000000000 +0400
> > > +++ 2.6.18-rc3/kernel/rtmutex.c	2006-08-13 22:09:45.000000000 +0400
> > > @@ -236,6 +236,10 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
> > > 		goto out_unlock_pi;
> > > 	}
> > >
> > > +	/* Release the task */
> > > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> > > +	put_task_struct(task);
> > > +
> >
> > So you want the task to go away here and use it below?
>
> task->pi_blocked_on != NULL, we hold task->pi_blocked_on->lock->wait_lock.
> Can it go away ?

That is correct. But does it make the code more readable? When you read 
the code you shouldn't need to go into that kind of complicated arguments 
to see the correctness - unless the code can't be written otherwise.


> > > 	top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock);
> > >
> > > 	/* Requeue the waiter */
> > > @@ -243,10 +247,6 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
> > > 	waiter->list_entry.prio = task->prio;
> > > 	plist_add(&waiter->list_entry, &lock->wait_list);
> > >
> > > -	/* Release the task */
> > > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> > > -	put_task_struct(task);
> > > -
> >
> > No! It is used in the line just above, so we better be sure it still
> > exists!
>
> See above. If I am wrong, we can move this line
>
> 	waiter->list_entry.prio = task->prio;
>
> up, under ->pi_lock. plist_del() doesn't need a valid ->prio.

Correct.

> Thanks for your answer!
>
> Oleg.

Esben

-
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/