From: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
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
task_work_run() with a spin_lock_irq() and a spin_unlock_irq() aruond
the cmpxchg() dequeue loop. This should be safe from a performance
perspective because ->pi_lock is local to the task and because calls to
the other side of the race, task_work_cancel(), should be rare.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/task_work.c | 8 ++------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c
index d513051fcca2..836a72a66fba 100644
--- a/kernel/task_work.c
+++ b/kernel/task_work.c
@@ -96,20 +96,16 @@ void task_work_run(void)
* work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
* work_exited unless the list is empty.
*/
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
do {
work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
head = !work && (task->flags & PF_EXITING) ?
&work_exited : NULL;
} while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, work, head) != work);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
if (!work)
break;
- /*
- * Synchronize with task_work_cancel(). It can't remove
- * the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) should
- * fail, but it can play with *work and other entries.
- */
- raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);
do {
next = work->next;
--
2.5.2
