[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:03:20 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>, aswin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] locking/rwsem: check for active writer/spinner
before wakeup
On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 14:30 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I have 2 issues about this. First of all, the timing windows between
> atomic_set() and mutex_has_owner() check is really small, I doubt it
> will be that effective.
That is true, which is why I didn't bother showing any performance data
in the changelog. However, more important than any performance, avoiding
bogus wakeups is the _right_ thing to do when allowing lock stealing.
> Secondly, I think you may need to call
> mutex_release() and debug_mutex_unlock() to make the debugging code
> work, but they seems to be called only under the wait_lock. So I think
> there is more work that need to be done before this patch is ready.
When !DEBUG both mutex_release() and debug_mutex_unlock() should be
no-ops. So this allows us to do the mutex_has_owner() check *without*
holding the wait_lock.
When DEBUG is set, we don't even bother calling mutex_has_owner(), so
nothing changes.
I don't understand your concern.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists