[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130416100505.GD31156@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:05:05 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 optional 3/3] mutex: back out architecture specific
check for negative mutex count
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:37:59PM +0100, Waiman Long wrote:
> If it is confirmed that all the supported architectures can allow a
> negative mutex count without incorrect behavior, we can then back
> out the architecture specific change and allow the mutex count to
> go to any negative number. That should further reduce contention for
> non-x86 architecture.
>
> If this is not the case, this patch should be dropped.
A good starting point might be to look at the asm-generic mutex
implementations, which clears up the majority of architectures. A cursory
glance at mutex-dec.h suggests that it's OK to me...
Will
--
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