From d6c23bb3a2ad2f8f7dd46292b8bc54d27f2fb3f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:28:14 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] sched: Add get_current_state() Remove yet another few p->state accesses. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Will Deacon Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210611082838.347475156@infradead.org --- block/blk-mq.c | 2 +- include/linux/sched.h | 2 ++ kernel/freezer.c | 2 +- kernel/sched/core.c | 6 +++--- 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c index 655db5fb46d0..56270bb06365 100644 --- a/block/blk-mq.c +++ b/block/blk-mq.c @@ -3910,7 +3910,7 @@ int blk_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie, bool spin) hctx->poll_considered++; - state = current->state; + state = get_current_state(); do { int ret; diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h index 2cd56352dae1..395c8906f502 100644 --- a/include/linux/sched.h +++ b/include/linux/sched.h @@ -213,6 +213,8 @@ struct task_group; #endif +#define get_current_state() READ_ONCE(current->state) + /* Task command name length: */ #define TASK_COMM_LEN 16 diff --git a/kernel/freezer.c b/kernel/freezer.c index dc520f01f99d..45ab36ffd0e7 100644 --- a/kernel/freezer.c +++ b/kernel/freezer.c @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ bool __refrigerator(bool check_kthr_stop) /* Hmm, should we be allowed to suspend when there are realtime processes around? */ bool was_frozen = false; - long save = current->state; + unsigned int save = get_current_state(); pr_debug("%s entered refrigerator\n", current->comm); diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 618c2b5a5758..45ebb3cfe86c 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -9098,15 +9098,15 @@ static inline int preempt_count_equals(int preempt_offset) void __might_sleep(const char *file, int line, int preempt_offset) { + unsigned int state = get_current_state(); /* * Blocking primitives will set (and therefore destroy) current->state, * since we will exit with TASK_RUNNING make sure we enter with it, * otherwise we will destroy state. */ - WARN_ONCE(current->state != TASK_RUNNING && current->task_state_change, + WARN_ONCE(state != TASK_RUNNING && current->task_state_change, "do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; " - "state=%lx set at [<%p>] %pS\n", - current->state, + "state=%x set at [<%p>] %pS\n", state, (void *)current->task_state_change, (void *)current->task_state_change); -- 2.20.1