[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160122031324.GI3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:13:24 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list
is not NULL.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:48:54PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> >I did some testing, which exposed it to the 0day test robot, which
> >did note some performance differences. I was hoping that it would
> >clear up some instability from other patches, but no such luck. ;-)
>
> Oh, that explains why we got a performance regression report :)
Plus I suspected that you wanted some extra email. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists