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 spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock().
This should be safe from a performance perspective because calls to the
other side of the race, task_work_cancel(), should be rare.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
---
kernel/task_work.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c
index d513051fcca2..b9b428832229 100644
--- a/kernel/task_work.c
+++ b/kernel/task_work.c
@@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ void task_work_run(void)
* 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);
+ raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
do {
next = work->next;
--
2.5.2
