Turn the pi-chains from plist to rb-tree, in the rt_mutex code,
and provide a proper comparison function for -deadline and
-priority tasks.
This is done mainly because:
- classical prio field of the plist is just an int, which might
not be enough for representing a deadline;
- manipulating such a list would become O(nr_deadline_tasks),
which might be to much, as the number of -deadline task increases.
Therefore, an rb-tree is used, and tasks are queued in it according
to the following logic:
- among two -priority (i.e., SCHED_BATCH/OTHER/RR/FIFO) tasks, the
one with the higher (lower, actually!) prio wins;
- among a -priority and a -deadline task, the latter always wins;
- among two -deadline tasks, the one with the earliest deadline
wins.
Queueing and dequeueing functions are changed accordingly, for both
the list of a task's pi-waiters and the list of tasks blocked on
a pi-lock.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-again-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1383831828-15501-10-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
When mutex debugging is enabled and an imbalanced mutex_unlock()
is called, we get the following, slightly confusing warning:
[ 364.208284] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(lock->owner != current)
But in that case the warning is due to an imbalanced mutex_unlock() call,
and the lock->owner is NULL - so the message is misleading.
So improve the message by testing for this case specifically:
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!lock->owner)
Signed-off-by: Liu, Chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1386136693.3650.48.camel@cliu38-desktop-build
[ Improved the changelog, changed the patch to use !lock->owner consistently. ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Lockdep is an awesome piece of code which detects locking issues
which are relevant both to userspace and kernelspace. We can
easily make lockdep work in userspace since there is really no
kernel spacific magic going on in the code.
All we need is to wrap two functions which are used by lockdep
and are very kernel specific.
Doing that will allow tools located in tools/ to easily utilize
lockdep's code for their own use.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: penberg@kernel.org
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1352753446-24109-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
There are new Sparse warnings:
>> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1235:15: sparse: symbol '__lockdep_count_forward_deps' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1261:15: sparse: symbol '__lockdep_count_backward_deps' was not declared. Should it be static?
Please consider folding the attached diff :-)
Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/527d1787.ThzXGoUspZWehFDl\%fengguang.wu@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Notably: changed lib/rwsem* targets from lib- to obj-, no idea about
the ramifications of that.
Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-g0kynfh5feriwc6p3h6kpbw6@git.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Peter Zijlstra
Chuansheng Liu
Sasha Levin
Fengguang Wu