From f274f1e72d7171c80c8c790040e47a23a74796b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oleg Nesterov Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:13:59 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] task_work: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair 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 Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- 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;