[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201208170233.GG2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:02:33 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] locking/rwsem: Rework reader optimistic spinning
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 11:33:38AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 12/8/20 9:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:14:11PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > Waiman Long (5):
> > > locking/rwsem: Pass the current atomic count to
> > > rwsem_down_read_slowpath()
> > > locking/rwsem: Prevent potential lock starvation
> > > locking/rwsem: Enable reader optimistic lock stealing
> > > locking/rwsem: Wake up all waiting readers if RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED
> > > locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning
> > So I've munged the lot onto the other rwsem patches and skipped #4, I've
> > not even boot tested them (will go do so shortly).
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git locking/core
> >
> I have checked the four patches in your locking/core branch. They look good
> to me. Are you planning to push the branch to tip soon so that it can be
> ready for the next merge window?
Yeah, provided the robots don't hate on it more than already reported.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists