[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8g74YJVonMHpWw/@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 18:35:13 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, vbabka@...e.cz,
hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
peterz@...radead.org, hughd@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/41] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma_lock
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:26:39PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:27 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > The cpu_relax() is exactly the wrong thing to do here. See this thread:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230113184447.1707316-1-mjguzik@gmail.com/
>
> If you are right, feel free to go and remove every cpu_relax() under the
> kernel/locking directory.
I see you didn't read the whole thread where Linus points out that a
cmpxchg() loop is fundamentally different from a spinlock.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists