Message-ID: <51A33AD0.4030406@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:52:00 +0200
From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org,
        robclark@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@elte.hu, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks,
 v3
References: <20130428165914.17075.57751.stgit@patser> <20130428170407.17075.80082.stgit@patser> <20130430191422.GA5763@phenom.ffwll.local> <519CA976.9000109@canonical.com> <20130522161831.GQ18810@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <519CFF56.90600@canonical.com> <20130527082149.GE2781@laptop> <51A32F0E.9000206@canonical.com> <20130527102457.GA4341@laptop>
In-Reply-To: <20130527102457.GA4341@laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2613
Lines: 53

Op 27-05-13 12:24, Peter Zijlstra schreef:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:01:50PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Again, early.. monday.. would a trylock, even if successful still need
>>> the ctx?
>> No ctx for trylock is supported. You can still do a trylock while
>> holding a context, but the mutex won't be a part of the context.
>> Normal lockdep rules apply. lib/locking-selftest.c:
>>
>> context + ww_mutex_lock first, then a trylock:
>> dotest(ww_test_context_try, SUCCESS, LOCKTYPE_WW);
>>
>> trylock first, then context + ww_mutex_lock:
>> dotest(ww_test_try_context, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_WW);
>>
>> For now I don't want to add support for a trylock with context, I'm
>> very glad I managed to fix ttm locking to not require this any more,
>> and it was needed there only because it was a workaround for the
>> locking being wrong.  There was no annotation for the buffer locking
>> it was using, so the real problem wasn't easy to spot.
> Ah, ok. 
>
> My question really was whether there even was sense for a trylock with
> context. I couldn't come up with a case for it; but I think I see one
> now.
The reason ttm needed it was because there was another lock that interacted
with the ctx lock in a weird way. The ww lock it was using was inverted with another
lock, so it had to grab that lock first, perform a trylock on the ww lock, and if that failed
unlock the lock, wait for it to be unlocked, then retry the same thing again.
I'm so glad I managed to fix that mess, if you really need ww_mutex_trylock with a ctx,
it's an indication your locking is wrong.

For ww_mutex_trylock with a context to be of any use you would also need to return
0 or a -errno, (-EDEADLK, -EBUSY (already locked by someone else), or -EALREADY).
This would make the trylock very different from other trylocks, and very confusing because
if (ww_mutex_trylock(lock, ctx)) would not do what you would think it would do.
> The thing is; if there could exist something like:
>
>   ww_mutex_trylock(struct ww_mutex *, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx);
>
> Then we should not now take away that name and make it mean something
> else; namely: ww_mutex_trylock_single().
>
> Unless we want to allow .ctx=NULL to mean _single.
>
> As to why I proposed that (.ctx=NULL meaning _single); I suppose because
> I'm a minimalist at heart.
Minimalism isn't bad, it's just knowing when to sto

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/