[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140128205406.GI11314@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:54:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Waiman.Long@...com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr@...com, hpa@...or.com,
andi@...stfloor.org, aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com,
chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 4/5] mutex: Disable preemtion between modifying
lock->owner and locking/unlocking mutex
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:13:15AM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> This RFC patch disables preemption between modifying lock->owner and
> locking/unlocking the mutex lock. This prevents situations where the owner
> can preempt between those 2 operations, which causes optimistic spinners to
> be unable to check if lock->owner is not on CPU. As mentioned in the
> thread for this v1 patchset, disabling preemption is a cheap operation.
In that same thread it was also said that this wasn't really an issue at
all. So what is the justification?
The patch is rather hideous.
--
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