--- /dev/null
+#
+# Copyright (c) 2006 Steven Rostedt
+# Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
+#
+
+RT-mutex implementation design
+------------------------------
+
+This document tries to describe the design of the rtmutex.c implementation.
+It doesn't describe the reasons why rtmutex.c exists. For that please see
+Documentation/rt-mutex.txt. Although this document does explain problems
+that happen without this code, but that is in the concept to understand
+what the code actually is doing.
+
+The goal of this document is to help others understand the priority
+inheritance (PI) algorithm that is used, as well as reasons for the
+decisions that were made to implement PI in the manner that was done.
+
+
+Unbounded Priority Inversion
+----------------------------
+
+Priority inversion is when a lower priority process executes while a higher
+priority process wants to run. This happens for several reasons, and
+most of the time it can't be helped. Anytime a high priority process wants
+to use a resource that a lower priority process has (a mutex for example),
+the high priority process must wait until the lower priority process is done
+with the resource. This is a priority inversion. What we want to prevent
+is something called unbounded priority inversion. That is when the high
+priority process is prevented from running by a lower priority process for
+an undetermined amount of time.
+
+The classic example of unbounded priority inversion is were you have three
+processes, let's call them processes A, B, and C, where A is the highest
+priority process, C is the lowest, and B is in between. A tries to grab a lock
+that C owns and must wait and lets C run to release the lock. But in the
+meantime, B executes, and since B is of a higher priority than C, it preempts C,
+but by doing so, it is in fact preempting A which is a higher priority process.
+Now there's no way of knowing how long A will be sleeping waiting for C
+to release the lock, because for all we know, B is a CPU hog and will
+never give C a chance to release the lock. This is called unbounded priority
+inversion.
+
+Here's a little ASCII art to show the problem.
+
+ grab lock L1 (owned by C)
+ |
+A ---+
+ C preempted by B
+ |
+C +----+
+
+B +-------->
+ B now keeps A from running.
+
+
+Priority Inheritance (PI)
+-------------------------
+
+There are several ways to solve this issue, but other ways are out of scope
+for this document. Here we only discuss PI.
+
+PI is where a process inherits the priority of another process if the other
+process blocks on a lock owned by the current process. To make this easier
+to understand, let's use the previous example, with processes A, B, and C again.
+
+This time, when A blocks on the lock owned by C, C would inherit the priority
+of A. So now if B becomes runnable, it would not preempt C, since C now has
+the high priority of A. As soon as C releases the lock, it loses its
+inherited priority, and A then can continue with the resource that C had.
+
+Terminology
+-----------
+
+Here I explain some terminology that is used in this document to help describe
+the design that is used to implement PI.
+
+PI chain - The PI chain is an ordered series of locks and processes that cause
+ processes to inherit priorities from a previous process that is
+ blocked on one of its locks. This is described in more detail
+ later in this document.
+
+mutex - In this document, to differentiate from locks that implement
+ PI and spin locks that are used in the PI code, from now on
+ the PI locks will be called a mutex.
+
+lock - In this document from now on, I will use the term lock when
+ referring to spin locks that are used to protect parts of the PI
+ algorithm. These locks disable preemption for UP (when
+ CONFIG_PREEMPT is enabled) and on SMP prevents multiple CPUs from
+ entering critical sections simultaneously.
+
+spin lock - Same as lock above.
+
+waiter - A waiter is a struct that is stored on the stack of a blocked
+ process. Since the scope of the waiter is within the code for
+ a process being blocked on the mutex, it is fine to allocate
+ the waiter on the process's stack (local variable). This
+ structure holds a pointer to the task, as well as the mutex that
+ the task is blocked on. It also has the plist node structures to
+ place the task in the waiter_list of a mutex as well as the
+ pi_list of a mutex owner task (described below).
+
+ waiter is sometimes used in reference to the task that is waiting
+ on a mutex. This is the same as waiter->task.
+
+waiters - A list of processes that are blocked on a mutex.
+
+top waiter - The highest priority process waiting on a specific mutex.
+
+top pi waiter - The highest priority process waiting on one of the mutexes
+ that a specific process owns.
+
+Note: task and process are used interchangeably in this document, mostly to
+ differentiate between two processes that are being described together.
+
+
+PI chain
+--------
+
+The PI chain is a list of processes and mutexes that may cause priority
+inheritance to take place. Multiple chains may converge, but a chain
+would never diverge, since a process can't be blocked on more than one
+mutex at a time.
+
+Example:
+
+ Process: A, B, C, D, E
+ Mutexes: L1, L2, L3, L4
+
+ A owns: L1
+ B blocked on L1
+ B owns L2
+ C blocked on L2
+ C owns L3
+ D blocked on L3
+ D owns L4
+ E blocked on L4
+
+The chain would be:
+
+ E->L4->D->L3->C->L2->B->L1->A
+
+To show where two chains merge, we could add another process F and
+another mutex L5 where B owns L5 and F is blocked on mutex L5.
+
+The chain for F would be:
+
+ F->L5->B->L1->A
+
+Since a process may own more than one mutex, but never be blocked on more than
+one, the chains merge.
+
+Here we show both chains:
+
+ E->L4->D->L3->C->L2-+
+ |
+ +->B->L1->A
+ |
+ F->L5-+
+
+For PI to work, the processes at the right end of these chains (or we may
+also call it the Top of the chain) must be equal to or higher in priority
+than the processes to the left or below in the chain.
+
+Also since a mutex may have more than one process blocked on it, we can
+have multiple chains merge at mutexes. If we add another process G that is
+blocked on mutex L2:
+
+ G->L2->B->L1->A
+
+And once again, to show how this can grow I will show the merging chains
+again.
+
+ E->L4->D->L3->C-+
+ +->L2-+
+ | |
+ G-+ +->B->L1->A
+ |
+ F->L5-+
+
+
+Plist
+-----
+
+Before I go further and talk about how the PI chain is stored through lists
+on both mutexes and processes, I'll explain the plist. This is similar to
+the struct list_head functionality that is already in the kernel.
+The implementation of plist is out of scope for this document, but it is
+very important to understand what it does.
+
+There are a few differences between plist and list, the most important one
+being that plist is a priority sorted linked list. This means that the
+priorities of the plist are sorted, such that it takes O(1) to retrieve the
+highest priority item in the list. Obviously this is useful to store processes
+based on their priorities.
+
+Another difference, which is important for implementation, is that, unlike
+list, the head of the list is a different element than the nodes of a list.
+So the head of the list is declared as struct plist_head and nodes that will
+be added to the list are declared as struct plist_node.
+
+
+Mutex Waiter List
+-----------------
+
+Every mutex keeps track of all the waiters that are blocked on itself. The mutex
+has a plist to store these waiters by priority. This list is protected by
+a spin lock that is located in the struct of the mutex. This lock is called
+wait_lock. Since the modification of the waiter list is never done in
+interrupt context, the wait_lock can be taken without disabling interrupts.
+
+
+Task PI List
+------------
+
+To keep track of the PI chains, each process has its own PI list. This is
+a list of all top waiters of the mutexes that are owned by the process.
+Note that this list only holds the top waiters and not all waiters that are
+blocked on mutexes owned by the process.
+
+The top of the task's PI list is always the highest priority task that
+is waiting on a mutex that is owned by the task. So if the task has
+inherited a priority, it will always be the priority of the task that is
+at the top of this list.
+
+This list is stored in the task structure of a process as a plist called
+pi_list. This list is protected by a spin lock also in the task structure,
+called pi_lock. This lock may also be taken in interrupt context, so when
+locking the pi_lock, interrupts must be disabled.
+
+
+Depth of the PI Chain
+---------------------
+
+The maximum depth of the PI chain is not dynamic, and could actually be
+defined. But is very complex to figure it out, since it depends on all
+the nesting of mutexes. Let's look at the example where we have 3 mutexes,
+L1, L2, and L3, and four separate functions func1, func2, func3 and func4.
+The following shows a locking order of L1->L2->L3, but may not actually
+be directly nested that way.
+
+void func1(void)
+{
+ mutex_lock(L1);
+
+ /* do anything */
+
+ mutex_unlock(L1);
+}
+
+void func2(void)
+{
+ mutex_lock(L1);
+ mutex_lock(L2);
+
+ /* do something */
+
+ mutex_unlock(L2);
+ mutex_unlock(L1);
+}
+
+void func3(void)
+{
+ mutex_lock(L2);
+ mutex_lock(L3);
+
+ /* do something else */
+
+ mutex_unlock(L3);
+ mutex_unlock(L2);
+}
+
+void func4(void)
+{
+ mutex_lock(L3);
+
+ /* do something again */
+
+ mutex_unlock(L3);
+}
+
+Now we add 4 processes that run each of these functions separately.
+Processes A, B, C, and D which run functions func1, func2, func3 and func4
+respectively, and such that D runs first and A last. With D being preempted
+in func4 in the "do something again" area, we have a locking that follows:
+
+D owns L3
+ C blocked on L3
+ C owns L2
+ B blocked on L2
+ B owns L1
+ A blocked on L1
+
+And thus we have the chain A->L1->B->L2->C->L3->D.
+
+This gives us a PI depth of 4 (four processes), but looking at any of the
+functions individually, it seems as though they only have at most a locking
+depth of two. So, although the locking depth is defined at compile time,
+it still is very difficult to find the possibilities of that depth.
+
+Now since mutexes can be defined by user-land applications, we don't want a DOS
+type of application that nests large amounts of mutexes to create a large
+PI chain, and have the code holding spin locks while looking at a large
+amount of data. So to prevent this, the implementation not only implements
+a maximum lock depth, but also only holds at most two different locks at a
+time, as it walks the PI chain. More about this below.
+
+
+Mutex owner and flags
+---------------------
+
+The mutex structure contains a pointer to the owner of the mutex. If the
+mutex is not owned, this owner is set to NULL. Since all architectures
+have the task structure on at least a four byte alignment (and if this is
+not true, the rtmutex.c code will be broken!), this allows for the two
+least significant bits to be used as flags. This part is also described
+in Documentation/rt-mutex.txt, but will also be briefly described here.
+
+Bit 0 is used as the "Pending Owner" flag. This is described later.
+Bit 1 is used as the "Has Waiters" flags. This is also described later
+ in more detail, but is set whenever there are waiters on a mutex.
+
+
+cmpxchg Tricks
+--------------
+
+Some architectures implement an atomic cmpxchg (Compare and Exchange). This
+is used (when applicable) to keep the fast path of grabbing and releasing
+mutexes short.
+
+cmpxchg is basically the following function performed atomically:
+
+unsigned long _cmpxchg(unsigned long *A, unsigned long *B, unsigned long *C)
+{
+ unsigned long T = *A;
+ if (*A == *B) {
+ *A = *C;
+ }
+ return T;
+}
+#define cmpxchg(a,b,c) _cmpxchg(&a,&b,&c)
+
+This is really nice to have, since it allows you to only update a variable
+if the variable is what you expect it to be. You know if it succeeded if
+the return value (the old value of A) is equal to B.
+
+The macro rt_mutex_cmpxchg is used to try to lock and unlock mutexes. If
+the architecture does not support CMPXCHG, then this macro is simply set
+to fail every time. But if CMPXCHG is supported, then this will
+help out extremely to keep the fast path short.
+
+The use of rt_mutex_cmpxchg with the flags in the owner field help optimize
+the system for architectures that support it. This will also be explained
+later in this document.
+
+
+Priority adjustments
+--------------------
+
+The implementation of the PI code in rtmutex.c has several places that a
+process must adjust its priority. With the help of the pi_list of a
+process this is rather easy to know what needs to be adjusted.
+
+The functions implementing the task adjustments are rt_mutex_adjust_prio,
+__rt_mutex_adjust_prio (same as the former, but expects the task pi_lock
+to already be taken), rt_mutex_get_prio, and rt_mutex_setprio.
+
+rt_mutex_getprio and rt_mutex_setprio are only used in __rt_mutex_adjust_prio.
+
+rt_mutex_getprio returns the priority that the task should have. Either the
+task's own normal priority, or if a process of a higher priority is waiting on
+a mutex owned by the task, then that higher priority should be returned.
+Since the pi_list of a task holds an order by priority list of all the top
+waiters of all the mutexes that the task owns, rt_mutex_getprio simply needs
+to compare the top pi waiter to its own normal priority, and return the higher
+priority back.
+
+(Note: if looking at the code, you will notice that the lower number of
+ prio is returned. This is because the prio field in the task structure
+ is an inverse order of the actual priority. So a "prio" of 5 is
+ of higher priority than a "prio" of 10.)
+
+__rt_mutex_adjust_prio examines the result of rt_mutex_getprio, and if the
+result does not equal the task's current priority, then rt_mutex_setprio
+is called to adjust the priority of the task to the new priority.
+Note that rt_mutex_setprio is defined in kernel/sched.c to implement the
+actual change in priority.
+
+It is interesting to note that __rt_mutex_adjust_prio can either increase
+or decrease the priority of the task. In the case that a higher priority
+process has just blocked on a mutex owned by the task, __rt_mutex_adjust_prio
+would increase/boost the task's priority. But if a higher priority task
+were for some reason to leave the mutex (timeout or signal), this same function
+would decrease/unboost the priority of the task. That is because the pi_list
+always contains the highest priority task that is waiting on a mutex owned
+by the task, so we only need to compare the priority of that top pi waiter
+to the normal priority of the given task.
+
+
+High level overview of the PI chain walk
+----------------------------------------
+
+The PI chain walk is implemented by the function rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain.
+
+The implementation has gone through several iterations, and has ended up
+with what we believe is the best. It walks the PI chain by only grabbing
+at most two locks at a time, and is very efficient.
+
+The rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain can be used either to boost or lower process
+priorities.
+
+rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain is called with a task to be checked for PI
+(de)boosting (the owner of a mutex that a process is blocking on), a flag to
+check for deadlocking, the mutex that the task owns, and a pointer to a waiter
+that is the process's waiter struct that is blocked on the mutex (although this
+parameter may be NULL for deboosting).
+
+For this explanation, I will not mention deadlock detection. This explanation
+will try to stay at a high level.
+
+When this function is called, there are no locks held. That also means
+that the state of the owner and lock can change when entered into this function.
+
+Before this function is called, the task has already had rt_mutex_adjust_prio
+performed on it. This means that the task is set to the priority that it
+should be at, but the plist nodes of the task's waiter have not been updated
+with the new priorities, and that this task may not be in the proper locations
+in the pi_lists and wait_lists that the task is blocked on. This function
+solves all that.
+
+A loop is entered, where task is the owner to be checked for PI changes that
+was passed by parameter (for the first iteration). The pi_lock of this task is
+taken to prevent any more changes to the pi_list of the task. This also
+prevents new tasks from completing the blocking on a mutex that is owned by this
+task.
+
+If the task is not blocked on a mutex then the loop is exited. We are at
+the top of the PI chain.
+
+A check is now done to see if the original waiter (the process that is blocked
+on the current mutex) is the top pi waiter of the task. That is, is this
+waiter on the top of the task's pi_list. If it is not, it either means that
+there is another process higher in priority that is blocked on one of the
+mutexes that the task owns, or that the waiter has just woken up via a signal
+or timeout and has left the PI chain. In either case, the loop is exited, since
+we don't need to do any more changes to the priority of the current task, or any
+task that owns a mutex that this current task is waiting on. A priority chain
+walk is only needed when a new top pi waiter is made to a task.
+
+The next check sees if the task's waiter plist node has the priority equal to
+the priority the task is set at. If they are equal, then we are done with
+the loop. Remember that the function started with the priority of the
+task adjusted, but the plist nodes that hold the task in other processes
+pi_lists have not been adjusted.
+
+Next, we look at the mutex that the task is blocked on. The mutex's wait_lock
+is taken. This is done by a spin_trylock, because the locking order of the
+pi_lock and wait_lock goes in the opposite direction. If we fail to grab the
+lock, the pi_lock is released, and we restart the loop.
+
+Now that we have both the pi_lock of the task as well as the wait_lock of
+the mutex the task is blocked on, we update the task's waiter's plist node
+that is located on the mutex's wait_list.
+
+Now we release the pi_lock of the task.
+
+Next the owner of the mutex has its pi_lock taken, so we can update the
+task's entry in the owner's pi_list. If the task is the highest priority
+process on the mutex's wait_list, then we remove the previous top waiter
+from the owner's pi_list, and replace it with the task.
+
+Note: It is possible that the task was the current top waiter on the mutex,
+ in which case the task is not yet on the pi_list of the waiter. This
+ is OK, since plist_del does nothing if the plist node is not on any
+ list.
+
+If the task was not the top waiter of the mutex, but it was before we
+did the priority updates, that means we are deboosting/lowering the
+task. In this case, the task is removed from the pi_list of the owner,
+and the new top waiter is added.
+
+Lastly, we unlock both the pi_lock of the task, as well as the mutex's
+wait_lock, and continue the loop again. On the next iteration of the
+loop, the previous owner of the mutex will be the task that will be
+processed.
+
+Note: One might think that the owner of this mutex might have changed
+ since we just grab the mutex's wait_lock. And one could be right.
+ The important thing to remember is that the owner could not have
+ become the task that is being processed in the PI chain, since
+ we have taken that task's pi_lock at the beginning of the loop.
+ So as long as there is an owner of this mutex that is not the same
+ process as the tasked being worked on, we are OK.
+
+ Looking closely at the code, one might be confused. The check for the
+ end of the PI chain is when the task isn't blocked on anything or the
+ task's waiter structure "task" element is NULL. This check is
+ protected only by the task's pi_lock. But the code to unlock the mutex
+ sets the task's waiter structure "task" element to NULL with only
+ the protection of the mutex's wait_lock, which was not taken yet.
+ Isn't this a race condition if the task becomes the new owner?
+
+ The answer is No! The trick is the spin_trylock of the mutex's
+ wait_lock. If we fail that lock, we release the pi_lock of the
+ task and continue the loop, doing the end of PI chain check again.
+
+ In the code to release the lock, the wait_lock of the mutex is held
+ the entire time, and it is not let go when we grab the pi_lock of the
+ new owner of the mutex. So if the switch of a new owner were to happen
+ after the check for end of the PI chain and the grabbing of the
+ wait_lock, the unlocking code would spin on the new owner's pi_lock
+ but never give up the wait_lock. So the PI chain loop is guaranteed to
+ fail the spin_trylock on the wait_lock, release the pi_lock, and
+ try again.
+
+ If you don't quite understand the above, that's OK. You don't have to,
+ unless you really want to make a proof out of it ;)
+
+
+Pending Owners and Lock stealing
+--------------------------------
+
+One of the flags in the owner field of the mutex structure is "Pending Owner".
+What this means is that an owner was chosen by the process releasing the
+mutex, but that owner has yet to wake up and actually take the mutex.
+
+Why is this important? Why can't we just give the mutex to another process
+and be done with it?
+
+The PI code is to help with real-time processes, and to let the highest
+priority process run as long as possible with little latencies and delays.
+If a high priority process owns a mutex that a lower priority process is
+blocked on, when the mutex is released it would be given to the lower priority
+process. What if the higher priority process wants to take that mutex again.
+The high priority process would fail to take that mutex that it just gave up
+and it would need to boost the lower priority process to run with full
+latency of that critical section (since the low priority process just entered
+it).
+
+There's no reason a high priority process that gives up a mutex should be
+penalized if it tries to take that mutex again. If the new owner of the
+mutex has not woken up yet, there's no reason that the higher priority process
+could not take that mutex away.
+
+To solve this, we introduced Pending Ownership and Lock Stealing. When a
+new process is given a mutex that it was blocked on, it is only given
+pending ownership. This means that it's the new owner, unless a higher
+priority process comes in and tries to grab that mutex. If a higher priority
+process does come along and wants that mutex, we let the higher priority
+process "steal" the mutex from the pending owner (only if it is still pending)
+and continue with the mutex.
+
+
+Taking of a mutex (The walk through)
+------------------------------------
+
+OK, now let's take a look at the detailed walk through of what happens when
+taking a mutex.
+
+The first thing that is tried is the fast taking of the mutex. This is
+done when we have CMPXCHG enabled (otherwise the fast taking automatically
+fails). Only when the owner field of the mutex is NULL can the lock be
+taken with the CMPXCHG and nothing else needs to be done.
+
+If there is contention on the lock, whether it is owned or pending owner
+we go about the slow path (rt_mutex_slowlock).
+
+The slow path function is where the task's waiter structure is created on
+the stack. This is because the waiter structure is only needed for the
+scope of this function. The waiter structure holds the nodes to store
+the task on the wait_list of the mutex, and if need be, the pi_list of
+the owner.
+
+The wait_lock of the mutex is taken since the slow path of unlocking the
+mutex also takes this lock.
+
+We then call try_to_take_rt_mutex. This is where the architecture that
+does not implement CMPXCHG would always grab the lock (if there's no
+contention).
+
+try_to_take_rt_mutex is used every time the task tries to grab a mutex in the
+slow path. The first thing that is done here is an atomic setting of
+the "Has Waiters" flag of the mutex's owner field. Yes, this could really
+be false, because if the the mutex has no owner, there are no waiters and
+the current task also won't have any waiters. But we don't have the lock
+yet, so we assume we are going to be a waiter. The reason for this is to
+play nice for those architectures that do have CMPXCHG. By setting this flag
+now, the owner of the mutex can't release the mutex without going into the
+slow unlock path, and it would then need to grab the wait_lock, which this
+code currently holds. So setting the "Has Waiters" flag forces the owner
+to synchronize with this code.
+
+Now that we know that we can't have any races with the owner releasing the
+mutex, we check to see if we can take the ownership. This is done if the
+mutex doesn't have a owner, or if we can steal the mutex from a pending
+owner. Let's look at the situations we have here.
+
+ 1) Has owner that is pending
+ ----------------------------
+
+ The mutex has a owner, but it hasn't woken up and the mutex flag
+ "Pending Owner" is set. The first check is to see if the owner isn't the
+ current task. This is because this function is also used for the pending
+ owner to grab the mutex. When a pending owner wakes up, it checks to see
+ if it can take the mutex, and this is done if the owner is already set to
+ itself. If so, we succeed and leave the function, clearing the "Pending
+ Owner" bit.
+
+ If the pending owner is not current, we check to see if the current priority is
+ higher than the pending owner. If not, we fail the function and return.
+
+ There's also something special about a pending owner. That is a pending owner
+ is never blocked on a mutex. So there is no PI chain to worry about. It also
+ means that if the mutex doesn't have any waiters, there's no accounting needed
+ to update the pending owner's pi_list, since we only worry about processes
+ blocked on the current mutex.
+
+ If there are waiters on this mutex, and we just stole the ownership, we need
+ to take the top waiter, remove it from the pi_list of the pending owner, and
+ add it to the current pi_list. Note that at this moment, the pending owner
+ is no longer on the list of waiters. This is fine, since the pending owner
+ would add itself back when it realizes that it had the ownership stolen
+ from itself. When the pending owner tries to grab the mutex, it will fail
+ in try_to_take_rt_mutex if the owner field points to another process.
+
+ 2) No owner
+ -----------
+
+ If there is no owner (or we successfully stole the lock), we set the owner
+ of the mutex to current, and set the flag of "Has Waiters" if the current
+ mutex actually has waiters, or we clear the flag if it doesn't. See, it was
+ OK that we set that flag early, since now it is cleared.
+
+ 3) Failed to grab ownership
+ ---------------------------
+
+ The most interesting case is when we fail to take ownership. This means that
+ there exists an owner, or there's a pending owner with equal or higher
+ priority than the current task.
+
+We'll continue on the failed case.
+
+If the mutex has a timeout, we set up a timer to go off to break us out
+of this mutex if we failed to get it after a specified amount of time.
+
+Now we enter a loop that will continue to try to take ownership of the mutex, or
+fail from a timeout or signal.
+
+Once again we try to take the mutex. This will usually fail the first time
+in the loop, since it had just failed to get the mutex. But the second time
+in the loop, this would likely succeed, since the task would likely be
+the pending owner.
+
+If the mutex is TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE a check for signals and timeout is done
+here.
+
+The waiter structure has a "task" field that points to the task that is blocked
+on the mutex. This field can be NULL the first time it goes through the loop
+or if the task is a pending owner and had it's mutex stolen. If the "task"
+field is NULL then we need to set up the accounting for it.
+
+Task blocks on mutex
+--------------------
+
+The accounting of a mutex and process is done with the waiter structure of
+the process. The "task" field is set to the process, and the "lock" field
+to the mutex. The plist nodes are initialized to the processes current
+priority.
+
+Since the wait_lock was taken at the entry of the slow lock, we can safely
+add the waiter to the wait_list. If the current process is the highest
+priority process currently waiting on this mutex, then we remove the
+previous top waiter process (if it exists) from the pi_list of the owner,
+and add the current process to that list. Since the pi_list of the owner
+has changed, we call rt_mutex_adjust_prio on the owner to see if the owner
+should adjust its priority accordingly.
+
+If the owner is also blocked on a lock, and had its pi_list changed
+(or deadlock checking is on), we unlock the wait_lock of the mutex and go ahead
+and run rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain on the owner, as described earlier.
+
+Now all locks are released, and if the current process is still blocked on a
+mutex (waiter "task" field is not NULL), then we go to sleep (call schedule).
+
+Waking up in the loop
+---------------------
+
+The schedule can then wake up for a few reasons.
+ 1) we were given pending ownership of the mutex.
+ 2) we received a signal and was TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
+ 3) we had a timeout and was TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
+
+In any of these cases, we continue the loop and once again try to grab the
+ownership of the mutex. If we succeed, we exit the loop, otherwise we continue
+and on signal and timeout, will exit the loop, or if we had the mutex stolen
+we just simply add ourselves back on the lists and go back to sleep.
+
+Note: For various reasons, because of timeout and signals, the steal mutex
+ algorithm needs to be careful. This is because the current process is
+ still on the wait_list. And because of dynamic changing of priorities,
+ especially on SCHED_OTHER tasks, the current process can be the
+ highest priority task on the wait_list.
+
+Failed to get mutex on Timeout or Signal
+----------------------------------------
+
+If a timeout or signal occurred, the waiter's "task" field would not be
+NULL and the task needs to be taken off the wait_list of the mutex and perhaps
+pi_list of the owner. If this process was a high priority process, then
+the rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain needs to be executed again on the owner,
+but this time it will be lowering the priorities.
+
+
+Unlocking the Mutex
+-------------------
+
+The unlocking of a mutex also has a fast path for those architectures with
+CMPXCHG. Since the taking of a mutex on contention always sets the
+"Has Waiters" flag of the mutex's owner, we use this to know if we need to
+take the slow path when unlocking the mutex. If the mutex doesn't have any
+waiters, the owner field of the mutex would equal the current process and
+the mutex can be unlocked by just replacing the owner field with NULL.
+
+If the owner field has the "Has Waiters" bit set (or CMPXCHG is not available),
+the slow unlock path is taken.
+
+The first thing done in the slow unlock path is to take the wait_lock of the
+mutex. This synchronizes the locking and unlocking of the mutex.
+
+A check is made to see if the mutex has waiters or not. On architectures that
+do not have CMPXCHG, this is the location that the owner of the mutex will
+determine if a waiter needs to be awoken or not. On architectures that
+do have CMPXCHG, that check is done in the fast path, but it is still needed
+in the slow path too. If a waiter of a mutex woke up because of a signal
+or timeout between the time the owner failed the fast path CMPXCHG check and
+the grabbing of the wait_lock, the mutex may not have any waiters, thus the
+owner still needs to make this check. If there are no waiters than the mutex
+owner field is set to NULL, the wait_lock is released and nothing more is
+needed.
+
+If there are waiters, then we need to wake one up and give that waiter
+pending ownership.
+
+On the wake up code, the pi_lock of the current owner is taken. The top
+waiter of the lock is found and removed from the wait_list of the mutex
+as well as the pi_list of the current owner. The task field of the new
+pending owner's waiter structure is set to NULL, and the owner field of the
+mutex is set to the new owner with the "Pending Owner" bit set, as well
+as the "Has Waiters" bit if there still are other processes blocked on the
+mutex.
+
+The pi_lock of the previous owner is released, and the new pending owner's
+pi_lock is taken. Remember that this is the trick to prevent the race
+condition in rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain from adding itself as a waiter
+on the mutex.
+
+We now clear the "pi_blocked_on" field of the new pending owner, and if
+the mutex still has waiters pending, we add the new top waiter to the pi_list
+of the pending owner.
+
+Finally we unlock the pi_lock of the pending owner and wake it up.
+
+
+Contact
+-------
+
+For updates on this document, please email Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
+
+
+Credits
+-------
+
+Author: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
+
+Reviewers: Ingo Molnar, Thomas Gleixner, Thomas Duetsch, and Randy Dunlap
+
+Updates
+-------
+
+This document was originally written for 2.6.17-rc3-mm1
projects / linux-2.6 / commitdiff