[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ad716b6f-3d1a-8aab-b452-2e01769348dd@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:07:00 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
kernel@...ccoli.net, Andre Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Joshua Ashton <joshua@...ggi.es>,
Melissa Wen <mwen@...lia.com>,
Paul Gofman <pgofman@...eweavers.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
Pierre-Loup Griffais <pgriffais@...vesoftware.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Zebediah Figura <zfigura@...eweavers.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/split_lock: Add sysctl to control the misery mode
On 10/21/22 12:03, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
...
>> if (need_release_sem)
>> up(...);
>>
>> That's nice and compact. It's also logically easy to follow because you
>> can see how the need_release_sem gets set only after the
>> down_interruptible(). It's also nice to have both sites share the
>> 'need_release_sem' naming for grepping.
>>
>
> ...but, this is a very good suggestion, and will eliminate the need for
> two delayed_works, right?
Yes, that too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists