[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1390943840.11839.10.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:17:20 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, Waiman.Long@...com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mutex: Modify the way optimistic spinners are
queued
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 12:23 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:13:13AM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > ...
> > if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(task)))
> > - goto slowpath;
> > + break;
> >
> > /*
> > * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces
> > @@ -514,6 +511,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
> > */
> > arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> > }
> > + mspin_unlock(MLOCK(lock), &node);
> > slowpath:
>
> Are there any remaining goto statements to slowpath? If so, they need
> to release the lock. If not, this label should be removed.
We still have the !mutex_can_spin_on_owner case.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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