Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid starvation

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:50:10PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:

> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ static void __mutex_handoff(struct mutex *lock, struct
> task_st
>         for (;;) {
>                 unsigned long old, new;
> 
> +               if ((owner & ~MUTEX_FLAG_ALL) != current)
> +                       break;
>                 new = (owner & MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
>                 new |= (unsigned long)task;
> 
> I also think that the MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF bit needs to be cleared if the list
> is empty.
> 
> @@ -614,7 +633,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state,
> unsigned
>         mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, task);
>         /* set it to 0 if there are no waiters left: */
>         if (likely(list_empty(&lock->wait_list)))
> -               __mutex_clear_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
> +               __mutex_clear_flag(lock,
> MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS|MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> 
> Or we should try to reset the handoff bit after the while loop exit if the
> bit is still set.

Yes, I think you're right. I've also found another issue wrt WAITERS in
patch 1.

I'm not trying to get aim7 running to see if I can reproduce Jason's
results and verify things.