[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901080746290.3283@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:11:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> This was done because the interaction between trylock_slowpath and that
> -1000 state hurt my head.
Yeah, it was a stupid hacky thing to avoid the "list_empty()", but doing
it explicitly is fine (we don't hold the lock, so the list isn't
necessarily stable, but doing "list_empty()" is fine because we don't ever
dereference the pointers, we just compare the pointers themselves).
I shouldn't have done that hacky thing, it wasn't worth it.
Linus
--
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