[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160810092905.GN6879@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:29:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] locking/mutex: Ensure forward progress of
waiter-spinner
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:00:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >Alternative might be to use the LSB of mutex::owner, but that's going to
> >be somewhat icky too.
>
> I was thinking about doing that. However, the owner field is used in quite a
> number of places. It may be a bit risky to change all of them.
Agreed.
> >I'm not sure the 32bit platforms are going to be excited about growing
> >struct mutex...
>
> Or we can make this a 64-bit architecture specific change if the increase in
> mutex size is a real concern. Actually, we don't need to use a list_head
> structure for wait_list. It can be just a pointer to mutex_waiter that has
> the list_head structure. This can save a pointer from the structure.
Just grow the thing, we can poke at it later if we get complaints.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists