redonkable
/
remarkable-linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

task_work: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair 

There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair.  This commit therefore replaces the spin_unlock_wait() call in
task_work_run() with a spin_lock_irq() and a spin_unlock_irq() aruond
the cmpxchg() dequeue loop.  This should be safe from a performance
perspective because ->pi_lock is local to the task and because calls to
the other side of the race, task_work_cancel(), should be rare.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
zero-colors
Oleg Nesterov 2017-06-30 13:13:59 -07:00 committed by Paul E. McKenney
parent 3ef0c7a730
commit f274f1e72d
1 changed files with 2 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
kernel/task_work.c
View File

@ -96,20 +96,16 @@ void task_work_run(void)
* work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
* work_exited unless the list is empty.
*/
raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
do {
work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
head = !work && (task->flags & PF_EXITING) ?
&work_exited : NULL;
} while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, work, head) != work);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
if (!work)
break;
/*
* Synchronize with task_work_cancel(). It can't remove
* the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) should
* fail, but it can play with *work and other entries.
*/
raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);
do {
next = work->next;