[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150916150131.GC3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:01:31 +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 v6 5/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow 1 lock stealing attempt
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:29:14AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Only the queue head vCPU will be in pv_wait_head() spinning to acquire the
> lock.
But what will guarantee fwd progress for the lock that is the head?
Suppose CPU0 becomes head and enters the /* claim the lock */ loop.
Then CPU1 comes in, steals it in pv_wait_head(). CPU1 releases, CPU1
re-acquires and _again_ steals in pv_wait_head(), etc..
All the while CPU0 doesn't go anywhere.
--
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