[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:39:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, robclark@...il.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks,
v2
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The trick with the current code is that the oldest task
> will never see an -EAGAIN ever and hence is guaranteed to make forward
> progress. If the task is really unlucky though it might be forced to
> wait
> for a younger task for every ww_mutex it tries to acquire.
Agreed on that.. while I didn't state this my proposed thing should
behave the same. It follows from the symmetry breaking in that only
younger tasks can get 'kill'ed.
--
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