[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <FDD00A3A-6938-40DE-B464-A56C641B4634@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 10:30:28 -0400
From: Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@...cle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux@...linux.org.uk, mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com,
arnd@...db.de, longman@...hat.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
guohanjun@...wei.com, jglauber@...vell.com,
steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
dave.dice@...cle.com, rahul.x.yadav@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow
path of qspinlock
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 7:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:25:34PM -0400, Alex Kogan wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * find_successor - Scan the main waiting queue looking for the first
>> + * thread running on the same node as the lock holder. If found (call it
>> + * thread T), move all threads in the main queue between the lock holder
>> + * and T to the end of the secondary queue and return T; otherwise, return NULL.
>> + */
>> +static struct cna_node *find_successor(struct mcs_spinlock *me)
>
> Either don't use a kernel doc comment, but if you must, you have to
> stick to their format, otherwise we'll get endless stupid patches fixing
> up the stupid comment.
Will fix that.
Thanks,
— Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists