[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1391464583.7498.72.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:56:23 -0800
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 5/5] mutex: Give spinners a chance to
spin_on_owner if need_resched() triggered while queued
On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 22:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:55:34PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 20:25 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > XXX: anybody got a better name than m_spinlock?
> >
> > So I was thinking something along the lines of
> > mcs_spin_lock_cancelable() as that's essentially what this function
> > does.
>
> sure, but what do we call the data structure that goes with it? Can't
> have two struct mcs_spinlock :/
If this structure is only going to be used for cancelable mcs locking,
what do you think of "struct cancelable_mcs_spinlock"?
--
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