[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyw9hmbsKx8m6V9hzuJ6ZNpaoJD9g=q0Du1kTdoT5FH7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:53:07 -0400
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
>
>> 46 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 1298 deletions(-)
>
> Oh my.
Yeah, that looks like a pretty compelling argument right there, if
there isn't any other really major downside to this...
Peter, is there some downside that isn't obvious? Like "Well, this
does regress performance because it now always does X"?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists