Re: RFC: mutex: hung tasks on SMP platforms withasm-generic/mutex-xchg.h

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 07:09:02PM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:57:33PM +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h b/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
> > > index 580a6d35c7..44a66c99c8 100644
> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h
> > > @@ -25,8 +25,11 @@
> > >  static inline void
> > >  __mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
> > >  {
> > > -	if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1))
> > > -		fail_fn(count);
> > > +	if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1)) {
> > > +		/* Mark lock contention explicitly */
> > > +		if (likely(atomic_xchg(count, -1) != 1))
> > > +			fail_fn(count);
> > > +	}
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > 
> > Doesn't this mean that we're no longer just swapping 0 for a 0 if the lock
> > was taken, therefore needlessly sending the current owner down the slowpath
> > on unlock?
> 
> If the lock was taken, this means the count was either 0 or -1.  If it 
> was 1 then we just put a 0 there and we own it.  But if the cound was 0 
> then we should store -1 instead, which is what the inner xchg does.  If 
> the count was already -1 then we store -1 back.  That more closely mimic 
> what the atomic dec does which is what we want.

Ok, I just wasn't sure that marking the lock contended was required when it
was previously locked, given that we'll drop into spinning on the owner
anyway.

I'll add a commit message to the above and re-post if that's ok?

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