* then right waiter has a dl_prio() too.
*/
if (dl_prio(left->prio))
- return dl_time_before(left->task->dl.deadline,
- right->task->dl.deadline);
+ return dl_time_before(left->deadline, right->deadline);
return 0;
}
/* [7] Requeue the waiter in the lock waiter tree. */
rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
+
+ /*
+ * Update the waiter prio fields now that we're dequeued.
+ *
+ * These values can have changed through either:
+ *
+ * sys_sched_set_scheduler() / sys_sched_setattr()
+ *
+ * or
+ *
+ * DL CBS enforcement advancing the effective deadline.
+ *
+ * Even though pi_waiters also uses these fields, and that tree is only
+ * updated in [11], we can do this here, since we hold [L], which
+ * serializes all pi_waiters access and rb_erase() does not care about
+ * the values of the node being removed.
+ */
waiter->prio = task->prio;
+ waiter->deadline = task->dl.deadline;
+
rt_mutex_enqueue(lock, waiter);
/* [8] Release the task */
static int try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct rt_mutex *lock, struct task_struct *task,
struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
{
+ lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
+
/*
* Before testing whether we can acquire @lock, we set the
* RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS bit in @lock->owner. This forces all
struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
int chain_walk = 0, res;
+ lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
+
/*
* Early deadlock detection. We really don't want the task to
* enqueue on itself just to untangle the mess later. It's not
waiter->task = task;
waiter->lock = lock;
waiter->prio = task->prio;
+ waiter->deadline = task->dl.deadline;
/* Get the top priority waiter on the lock */
if (rt_mutex_has_waiters(lock))
struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
struct rt_mutex *next_lock;
+ lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
+
raw_spin_lock(¤t->pi_lock);
rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
current->pi_blocked_on = NULL;