From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        "longman@redhat.com" <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] locking/rtmutex: Fix incorrect spinning condition
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB5880A552E7A3856D8F9165FBDA799@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20211217074207.77425-1-qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
 <87k0g3ar7z.ffs@tglx>
 <PH0PR11MB5880A552E7A3856D8F9165FBDA799@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sat, 18 Dec 2021 10:34:56 +0100
Message-ID: <87zgoy9ry7.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Dec 18 2021 at 07:24, Qiang1 Zhang wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>=20
> Sent: 2021=E5=B9=B412=E6=9C=8818=E6=97=A5 4:53
> To: Zhang, Qiang1 <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>; peterz@infradead.org; mingo@r=
edhat.com; will@kernel.org; longman@redhat.com
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Zhang, Qiang1 <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rtmutex: Fix incorrect spinning
> condition

Can you please fix your mail client to do proper replies without copying
the mail headers into the message?

>>Though this does not apply because the condition is incomplete. You
>>somehow dropped this from the condition:
>>
>>                   vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner)))=20
>>
>>Please make always sure that your patches apply against Linus tree
>>before sending them out.
>
> This commit c0bed69daf4b ("locking: Make owner_on_cpu() into <linux/sched=
.h>")
> make the following modifications in latest linux-next.
>
> +static inline bool owner_on_cpu(struct task_struct *owner)
> +{
> +       /*
> +        * As lock holder preemption issue, we both skip spinning if
> +        * task is not on cpu or its cpu is preempted
> +        */
> +       return owner->on_cpu && !vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner));
> +}
> +

Fine, but then please tell against which tree/branch the patch is.

Thanks,

        tglx