[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57B5D2A2.3060403@hpe.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:22:10 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
<imre.deak@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, <terry.rudd@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/mutex: Prevent lock starvation when spinning
is enabled
On 08/18/2016 10:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:44:08AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
>> index 2cb7531..5643a233 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mutex.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
>> @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ struct mutex {
>> #endif
>> #ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
>> struct optimistic_spin_queue osq; /* Spinner MCS lock */
>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SMP)
>> + bool yield_to_waiter; /* Prevent starvation when spinning disabled */
>> #endif
>> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
>> void *magic;
> Isn't this also possible on !SMP&& PREEMPT ?
I don't think there is any realistic chance that starvation will happen
on a uniprocessor system with preemptible kernel. So I don't think that
is necessary.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists