[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1257792987.4108.364.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:56:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] mutex: mutex_is_owner() helper
On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 18:19 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> BTW, I was thinking of a mutex_yield() implementation, but could not
> cook it without hard thinking, maybe you already have some nice
> implementation ?
Why? Yield sets off alarm bells, since 99.9%, and possibly more, of its
uses are wrong.
> int mutex_yield(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> if (mutex_needbreak(lock) || should_resched()) {
> mutex_unlock(lock);
> __cond_resched();
> mutex_lock(lock);
> ret = 1;
> }
> return ret;
> }
That reads like it should be called cond_resched_mutex(), except that
the should_resched() thing seems daft (but maybe it makes sense for
silly preemption modes like voluntary).
iirc we actually have something similar in -rt in order to implement the
lock-break for the rt-mutex based spinlocks, we set ->needbreak when a
higher priority task contends -- a policy for regular mutexes might be
'interesting' though.
As to your 'debug' helper that started this thread, doesn't
lockdep_assert_held() work for you?
--
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