Commit 048661a1 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra

locking/mutex: Fix HANDOFF condition

Yanfei reported that setting HANDOFF should not depend on recomputing
@first, only on @first state. Which would then give:

  if (ww_ctx || !first)
    first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
  if (first)
    __mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);

But because 'ww_ctx || !first' is basically 'always' and the test for
first is relatively cheap, omit that first branch entirely.
Reported-by: default avatarYanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarWaiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarYanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210630154114.896786297@infradead.org
parent ab4e4d9f
......@@ -909,7 +909,6 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, const bool use_ww_ctx)
{
struct mutex_waiter waiter;
bool first = false;
struct ww_mutex *ww;
int ret;
......@@ -988,6 +987,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
set_current_state(state);
for (;;) {
bool first;
/*
* Once we hold wait_lock, we're serialized against
* mutex_unlock() handing the lock off to us, do a trylock
......@@ -1016,15 +1017,9 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
schedule_preempt_disabled();
/*
* ww_mutex needs to always recheck its position since its waiter
* list is not FIFO ordered.
*/
if (ww_ctx || !first) {
first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
if (first)
__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
}
first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
if (first)
__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
set_current_state(state);
/*
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment