Some method to deal with rt-mutexes and make sched_dl interact with
the current PI-coded is needed, raising all but trivial issues, that
needs (according to us) to be solved with some restructuring of
the pi-code (i.e., going toward a proxy execution-ish implementation).
This is under development, in the meanwhile, as a temporary solution,
what this commits does is:
- ensure a pi-lock owner with waiters is never throttled down. Instead,
when it runs out of runtime, it immediately gets replenished and it's
deadline is postponed;
- the scheduling parameters (relative deadline and default runtime)
used for that replenishments --during the whole period it holds the
pi-lock-- are the ones of the waiting task with earliest deadline.
Acting this way, we provide some kind of boosting to the lock-owner,
still by using the existing (actually, slightly modified by the previous
commit) pi-architecture.
We would stress the fact that this is only a surely needed, all but
clean solution to the problem. In the end it's only a way to re-start
discussion within the community. So, as always, comments, ideas, rants,
etc.. are welcome! :-)
Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
[ Added !RT_MUTEXES build fix. ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1383831828-15501-11-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
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>
Dario Faggioli