[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150716054911.GW19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:49:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Opportunistically defer
kicking to unlock time
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:18:35PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 06:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >*groan*, so you complained the previous version of this patch was too
> >complex, but let me say I vastly preferred it to this one :/
>
> I said it was complex as maintaining a tri-state variable needed more
> thought than 2 bi-state variables. I can revert it back to the tri-state
> variable as doing an unconditional kick in unlock simplifies the code at
> pv_wait_head().
Well, your state space isn't shrunk, you just use more variables and I'm
not entirely sure that actually matters.
What also doesn't help is that mixing with the kicking code.
--
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