[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200211123138.GN14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:31:38 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Add mutex_timed_lock() to solve
potential deadlock problems
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 03:46:48PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> An alternative solution proposed by this patchset is to add a new
> mutex_timed_lock() call that allows an additional timeout argument. This
> function will return an error code if timeout happens. The use of this
> new API will prevent deadlock from happening while allowing the task
> to wait a sufficient period of time before giving up.
We've always rejected timed_lock implementation because, as akpm has
already expressed, their need is disgusting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists