Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1457941
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] locking/mutex: Enable optimistic spinning of woken task in wait queue |
| Date | 2016-08-08 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s3Wxc-4gT-39@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rWnux-2E0-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rWnEe-2HJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 04:39:25PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > Ding Tianhong reported a live-lock situation where a constant stream > of incoming optimistic spinners blocked a task in the wait list from > getting the mutex. > > This patch attempts to fix this live-lock condition by enabling the > woken task in the wait queue to enter into an optimistic spinning > loop itself in parallel with the regular spinners in the OSQ. This > should prevent the live-lock condition from happening. No, two spinners are not in fact starvation proof. It makes the reported life-lock scenario much less likely, but it does not guarantee anything. > + /* > + * Optimistically spinning on the mutex without the wait lock There should either be a '.' at the end of that line, or the next line should not start with a capital. Also, I don't see how the two sentences are related, should they be in the same paragraph? > + * The state has to be set to running to avoid another waker > + * spinning on the on_cpu flag while the woken waiter is > + * spinning on the mutex. > + */ > + acquired = mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, > + true); > spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags); > } > __set_task_state(task, TASK_RUNNING);
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] locking/mutex: Enable optimistic spinning of woken task in wait queue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-08-08 19:30 +0200
csiph-web