Re: [PATCH -v11][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning
[Posted January 14, 2009 by corbet]
| From: |
| Nick Piggin <npiggin-AT-suse.de> |
| To: |
| Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH -v11][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning |
| Date: |
| Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20090114171800.GA18621@wotan.suse.de> |
| Cc: |
| Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins-AT-novell.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew-AT-wil.cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi-AT-firstfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason-AT-oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale-AT-novell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich-AT-novell.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko-AT-gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes-AT-cmpxchg.org> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article, Thread
|
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 06:00:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Full series, including changelogs available at:
>
> http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/mutex-ada...
>
> and should shortly appear in a git tree near Ingo :-)
Linus is going to take a wholesale conversion of mutexes to adaptive
mutexes? He's gone soft. I put on my asbestos underwear for no reason,
then.
> @@ -173,21 +237,21 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
> spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>
> debug_mutex_free_waiter(&waiter);
> + preempt_enable();
> return -EINTR;
> }
> __set_task_state(task, state);
>
> /* didnt get the lock, go to sleep: */
> spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> - schedule();
> + __schedule();
Why does this need to do a preempt-disabled schedule? After we schedule
away, the next task can do arbitrary things or reschedule itself, so if
we have not anticipated such a condition here, then I can't see what
__schedule protects. At least a comment is in order?
Pity to add the call overhead to schedule just for this case. BTW.
__schedule shouldn't need to be asmlinkage?
> spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
(
Log in to post comments)