[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1428609577.24035.3.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 12:59:37 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in
rwsem_spin_on_owner()
On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 12:43 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> So that looks more similar to how the original code was where the
> rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() was done inside the owner_running
> helper function (though without the CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC), before
> commit 307bf9803f25 ("sched: Simplify mutex_spin_on_owner()") modified
> it to be done outside the loop.
I think this is why Linus was mentioning the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU case as
well, so taking and releasing the read lock in those cases in the loop
would actually hurt more.
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