[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160617011155.GA14591@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:11:55 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper
acquire/release barrier
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>Yeah, see a few patches further in this series, where he guards a
>variables with the osq_lock.
So one problem I have with all this is that if we are hardening osq_lock/unlock()
because of some future use that is specific to rwsems, then we will immediately
be hurting mutexes for no good reason.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists