locking/rtmutex: Provide rt_wake_q_head and helpers
To handle the difference between wakeups for regular sleeping locks (mutex, rtmutex, rw_semaphore) and the wakeups for 'sleeping' spin/rwlocks on PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels correctly, it is required to provide a wake_q_head construct which allows to keep them separate. Provide a wrapper around wake_q_head and the required helpers, which will be extended with the state handling later. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210815211303.139337655@linutronix.de
This commit is contained in:
parent
c014ef69b3
commit
b576e640ce
@ -347,6 +347,21 @@ static __always_inline void rt_mutex_adjust_prio(struct task_struct *p)
|
||||
rt_mutex_setprio(p, pi_task);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* RT mutex specific wake_q wrappers */
|
||||
static __always_inline void rt_mutex_wake_q_add(struct rt_wake_q_head *wqh,
|
||||
struct rt_mutex_waiter *w)
|
||||
{
|
||||
wake_q_add(&wqh->head, w->task);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static __always_inline void rt_mutex_wake_up_q(struct rt_wake_q_head *wqh)
|
||||
{
|
||||
wake_up_q(&wqh->head);
|
||||
|
||||
/* Pairs with preempt_disable() in mark_wakeup_next_waiter() */
|
||||
preempt_enable();
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Deadlock detection is conditional:
|
||||
*
|
||||
|
@ -39,6 +39,20 @@ struct rt_mutex_waiter {
|
||||
u64 deadline;
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
/**
|
||||
* rt_wake_q_head - Wrapper around regular wake_q_head to support
|
||||
* "sleeping" spinlocks on RT
|
||||
* @head: The regular wake_q_head for sleeping lock variants
|
||||
*/
|
||||
struct rt_wake_q_head {
|
||||
struct wake_q_head head;
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
#define DEFINE_RT_WAKE_Q(name) \
|
||||
struct rt_wake_q_head name = { \
|
||||
.head = WAKE_Q_HEAD_INITIALIZER(name.head), \
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* PI-futex support (proxy locking functions, etc.):
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user