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_exit()
with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock(). This should be
safe from a performance perspective because the lock is a per-task lock,
and this is happening only at task-exit time.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
---
kernel/exit.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index 516acdb0e0ec..6d19c9090d43 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -832,7 +832,8 @@ void __noreturn do_exit(long code)
* Ensure that we must observe the pi_state in exit_mm() ->
* mm_release() -> exit_pi_state_list().
*/
- raw_spin_unlock_wait(&tsk->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&tsk->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->pi_lock);
if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
pr_info("note: %s[%d] exited with preempt_count %d\n",
--
2.5.2
