From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 19:08:26 +0000 (-0700)
Subject: sched: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair
X-Git-Tag: v4.14-rc1~174^2^2^5~6
X-Git-Url: https://asedeno.scripts.mit.edu/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=23a9b748a3d27f67cdb078fcb891a920285e75d9;p=linux.git

sched: 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
do_task_dead() with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock().
This should be safe from a performance perspective because the lock is
this tasks ->pi_lock, and this is called only after the task exits.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
[ paulmck: Drop smp_mb() based on Peter Zijlstra's analysis:
  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170811144150.26gowhxte7ri5fpk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net ]
---

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 17c667b427b4..5d22323ae099 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3352,8 +3352,8 @@ void __noreturn do_task_dead(void)
 	 * To avoid it, we have to wait for releasing tsk->pi_lock which
 	 * is held by try_to_wake_up()
 	 */
-	smp_mb();
-	raw_spin_unlock_wait(&current->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_lock_irq(&current->pi_lock);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&current->pi_lock);
 
 	/* Causes final put_task_struct in finish_task_switch(): */
 	__set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);