diff options
| author | Peter Ziljstra <peterz@infradead.org> | 2018-06-15 11:07:12 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com> | 2018-07-03 10:42:40 +0300 |
| commit | 55f036ca7e74b85e34958af3d22121c656796413 (patch) | |
| tree | 37bdbcea3384bb7d315f242b03ecc2bbff135f82 /Documentation/locking | |
| parent | eab976693153b9854bfa83d131374748f6ca4280 (diff) | |
| download | linux-55f036ca7e74b85e34958af3d22121c656796413.tar.xz | |
locking: WW mutex cleanup
Make the WW mutex code more readable by adding comments, splitting up
functions and pointing out that we're actually using the Wait-Die
algorithm.
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Co-authored-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/locking')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt | 12 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt b/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt index 34c3a1b50b9a..2fd7f2a2af21 100644 --- a/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt +++ b/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt @@ -32,10 +32,10 @@ the oldest task) wins, and the one with the higher reservation id (i.e. the younger task) unlocks all of the buffers that it has already locked, and then tries again. -In the RDBMS literature this deadlock handling approach is called wait/wound: +In the RDBMS literature this deadlock handling approach is called wait/die: The older tasks waits until it can acquire the contended lock. The younger tasks needs to back off and drop all the locks it is currently holding, i.e. the -younger task is wounded. +younger task dies. Concepts -------- @@ -56,9 +56,9 @@ Furthermore there are three different class of w/w lock acquire functions: * Normal lock acquisition with a context, using ww_mutex_lock. -* Slowpath lock acquisition on the contending lock, used by the wounded task - after having dropped all already acquired locks. These functions have the - _slow postfix. +* Slowpath lock acquisition on the contending lock, used by the task that just + killed its transaction after having dropped all already acquired locks. + These functions have the _slow postfix. From a simple semantics point-of-view the _slow functions are not strictly required, since simply calling the normal ww_mutex_lock functions on the @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ mutexes are a natural fit for such a case for two reasons: Note that this approach differs in two important ways from the above methods: - Since the list of objects is dynamically constructed (and might very well be - different when retrying due to hitting the -EDEADLK wound condition) there's + different when retrying due to hitting the -EDEADLK die condition) there's no need to keep any object on a persistent list when it's not locked. We can therefore move the list_head into the object itself. - On the other hand the dynamic object list construction also means that the -EALREADY return |