forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
sched: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair
There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics, and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock pair. This commit therefore replaces the spin_unlock_wait() call in do_task_dead() with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock(). This should be safe from a performance perspective because the lock is this tasks ->pi_lock, and this is called only after the task exits. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> [ paulmck: Drop smp_mb() based on Peter Zijlstra's analysis: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170811144150.26gowhxte7ri5fpk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net ]
This commit is contained in:
parent
f274f1e72d
commit
23a9b748a3
|
@ -3352,8 +3352,8 @@ void __noreturn do_task_dead(void)
|
|||
* To avoid it, we have to wait for releasing tsk->pi_lock which
|
||||
* is held by try_to_wake_up()
|
||||
*/
|
||||
smp_mb();
|
||||
raw_spin_unlock_wait(¤t->pi_lock);
|
||||
raw_spin_lock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
|
||||
raw_spin_unlock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
|
||||
|
||||
/* Causes final put_task_struct in finish_task_switch(): */
|
||||
__set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user