[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161018130242.GX3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:02:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 5/8] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid
starvation
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 03:07:54PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> One more thing, I think it may be worthwhile to add another comment about
> what happens when the HANDOFF bit was set while we take the error path (goto
> err). As the actual handoff is serialized by the wait_lock, the code will
> still do the right thing. Either the next one in the queue will be handed
> off or it will be unlocked if the queue is empty.
Doesn't the next patch add just such a comment?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists