[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316417840.10174.46.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:37:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] futex: Reduce hash bucket lock contention
On Sat, 2011-09-17 at 14:57 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> How do we verify that everything is able to deal with spurious
> wakeups?
>
Well, I could go audit all 1400+ *schedule*() callsites in the kernel.
Or we can rely on the fact that current code can already cause spurious
wakeups due to signals.
--
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