[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160122164630.GA1633@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:46:30 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list
is not NULL.
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
>The patch that I sent out is just a proof of concept to make sure
>that it can fix that particular case. I do plan to refactor it if I
>decide to go ahead with an official one. Unlike the OSQ, there can be
>no more than one waiter spinner as the wakeup function is directed to
>only the first task in the wait list and the spinning won't happen
>until the task is first woken up. In the worst case scenario, there
>are only 2 spinners spinning on the lock and the owner field, one
>from OSQ and one from the wait list. That shouldn't put too much
>cacheline contention traffic to the system.
Similarly, I guess we should also wakeup the next waiter in line after
releasing the wait_lock via wake_q. This would allow the woken waiter a
slightly better chance of finding the wait_lock free when continuing to
take the mutex.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists