[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YNx4IWfE/wpFFh0h@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:56:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Xu, Yanfei" <yanfei.xu@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Reduce chance of setting HANDOFF bit on
unlocked mutex
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 09:50:11AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> The code looks good to me. It is an even better approach to make sure that
> the HANDOFF will never be set on an unlocked mutex.
>
> Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Thanks, what about that XXX? Should we not check sigpending before doing
the optimistic spinning thing?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists