static void balance_push(struct rq *rq);
+/*
+ * balance_push_callback is a right abuse of the callback interface and plays
+ * by significantly different rules.
+ *
+ * Where the normal balance_callback's purpose is to be ran in the same context
+ * that queued it (only later, when it's safe to drop rq->lock again),
+ * balance_push_callback is specifically targeted at __schedule().
+ *
+ * This abuse is tolerated because it places all the unlikely/odd cases behind
+ * a single test, namely: rq->balance_callback == NULL.
+ */
struct callback_head balance_push_callback = {
.next = NULL,
.func = (void (*)(struct callback_head *))balance_push,
};
-static inline struct callback_head *splice_balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq)
+static inline struct callback_head *
+__splice_balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq, bool split)
{
struct callback_head *head = rq->balance_callback;
+ if (likely(!head))
+ return NULL;
+
lockdep_assert_rq_held(rq);
- if (head)
+ /*
+ * Must not take balance_push_callback off the list when
+ * splice_balance_callbacks() and balance_callbacks() are not
+ * in the same rq->lock section.
+ *
+ * In that case it would be possible for __schedule() to interleave
+ * and observe the list empty.
+ */
+ if (split && head == &balance_push_callback)
+ head = NULL;
+ else
rq->balance_callback = NULL;
return head;
}
+static inline struct callback_head *splice_balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq)
+{
+ return __splice_balance_callbacks(rq, true);
+}
+
static void __balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq)
{
- do_balance_callbacks(rq, splice_balance_callbacks(rq));
+ do_balance_callbacks(rq, __splice_balance_callbacks(rq, false));
}
static inline void balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq, struct callback_head *head)