[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1390946460.2807.19.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:01:00 -0800
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: 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, davidlohr@...com, hpa@...or.com,
andi@...stfloor.org, aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com,
chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return
false if task need_resched()
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 12:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:13:12AM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the
> > task needs to be rescheduled to avoid entering the MCS queue when it
> > needs to reschedule.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> But I cannot help asking how this affects performance. (My guess is
> "not much", but always good to know.)
Hi Paul,
In the past, when I tested this particular patch, I did not see any
noticeable performance gains. Patch 1 is really more of a "correctness"
change which was why I didn't retest this by itself. I can be sure to
include the benchmarks numbers on this particular patch though next
time.
Thanks.
--
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