[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1401913857.2232.6.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 13:30:57 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
peter@...leysoftware.com, riel@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
walken@...gle.com, Waiman.Long@...com, aswin@...com,
scott.norton@...com, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] locking/mutex: Correct documentation on mutex
optimistic spinning
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 13:11 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > The mutex optimistic spinning documentation states that we spin for
> > acquisition when we find that there are no pending waiters. However,
> > in actuality, whether or not there are waiters for the mutex doesn't
> > determine if we will spin for it.
> >
> > This patch removes that statement and also adds a comment which
> > mentions that we spin for the mutex while we don't need to reschedule.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
>
> Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
>
> I think this could go in with v4 of the mutex doc rewrite patch...
> guessing for 3.17 now.
Yeah, this patch could be for 3.17.
Thanks,
Jason
--
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