| Message ID | 1499395922-542-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
Any comments for this little change? It's passed on 0day testing. Thanks Alex On 07/07/2017 10:52 AM, Alex Shi wrote: > We don't need to adjust prio before new pi_waiter adding. The prio > only need update after pi_waiter change or task priority change. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> > Cc: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > --- > kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c > index 28cd09e..d1fe41f 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c > @@ -963,7 +963,6 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, > return -EDEADLK; > > raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock); > - rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task); > waiter->task = task; > waiter->lock = lock; > waiter->prio = task->prio; >
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 22:39:24 +0800 Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> wrote: > Any comments for this little change? It's passed on 0day testing. I think the problem was that this was a third patch after two documentation patches. Where, people put documentation review at the bottom of their priority list. This should have been sent as separate patch on its own. > > Thanks > Alex > > On 07/07/2017 10:52 AM, Alex Shi wrote: > > We don't need to adjust prio before new pi_waiter adding. The prio > > only need update after pi_waiter change or task priority change. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> > > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > Cc: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > > Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> > > Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > > To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > > --- > > kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 1 - > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c > > index 28cd09e..d1fe41f 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c > > @@ -963,7 +963,6 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, > > return -EDEADLK; > > > > raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock); > > - rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task); Interesting, I did some git mining and this was added with the original entry of the rtmutex.c (23f78d4a0). Looking at even that version, I don't see the purpose of adjusting the task prio here. It is done before anything changes in the task. Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org> -- Steve > > waiter->task = task; > > waiter->lock = lock; > > waiter->prio = task->prio; > >
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 22:39:24 +0800 > Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> wrote: > > > Any comments for this little change? It's passed on 0day testing. > > I think the problem was that this was a third patch after two > documentation patches. Where, people put documentation review at the > bottom of their priority list. > > This should have been sent as separate patch on its own. My problem was the sparse changelog, which forces me to think hard and thus is landed on the 'later' queue, which moves at glacial speeds.
On 07/12/2017 10:14 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 22:39:24 +0800 > Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> wrote: > >> Any comments for this little change? It's passed on 0day testing. > > I think the problem was that this was a third patch after two > documentation patches. Where, people put documentation review at the > bottom of their priority list. > > This should have been sent as separate patch on its own. > Got it. I will resend it. <snip>... > > Interesting, I did some git mining and this was added with the original > entry of the rtmutex.c (23f78d4a0). Looking at even that version, I > don't see the purpose of adjusting the task prio here. It is done > before anything changes in the task. > > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org> Thanks Steven! Regards Alex
On 07/13/2017 12:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 22:39:24 +0800 >> Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> wrote: >> >>> Any comments for this little change? It's passed on 0day testing. >> >> I think the problem was that this was a third patch after two >> documentation patches. Where, people put documentation review at the >> bottom of their priority list. >> >> This should have been sent as separate patch on its own. > > My problem was the sparse changelog, which forces me to think hard and > thus is landed on the 'later' queue, which moves at glacial speeds. > Yes, I should mentioned I didn't find out any reasons from the history changelogs. Thanks for reminder this! :) Regards Alex
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c index 28cd09e..d1fe41f 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c @@ -963,7 +963,6 @@ static int task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, return -EDEADLK; raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock); - rt_mutex_adjust_prio(task); waiter->task = task; waiter->lock = lock; waiter->prio = task->prio;
We don't need to adjust prio before new pi_waiter adding. The prio only need update after pi_waiter change or task priority change. Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> --- kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) -- 2.7.4