All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
Cc: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:46:30 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160122164630.GA1633@linux-uzut.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56A230C3.4070801@hpe.com>

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Waiman Long wrote:

>The patch that I sent out is just a proof of concept to make sure
>that it can fix that particular case. I do plan to refactor it if I
>decide to go ahead with an official one. Unlike the OSQ, there can be
>no more than one waiter spinner as the wakeup function is directed to
>only the first task in the wait list and the spinning won't happen
>until the task is first woken up. In the worst case scenario, there
>are only 2 spinners spinning on the lock and the owner field, one
>from OSQ and one from the wait list. That shouldn't put too much
>cacheline contention traffic to the system.

Similarly, I guess we should also wakeup the next waiter in line after
releasing the wait_lock via wake_q. This would allow the woken waiter a
slightly better chance of finding the wait_lock free when continuing to
take the mutex.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-22 16:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-21  9:29 [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL Ding Tianhong
2016-01-21 21:23 ` Tim Chen
2016-01-22  2:41   ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-22  2:48     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-22  3:13       ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-21 23:02 ` Waiman Long
2016-01-22  6:09   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-22 13:38     ` Waiman Long
2016-01-22 16:46       ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2016-01-25  2:23         ` [PATCH] locking/mutex: Allow next waiter lockless wakeup Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-25 23:02           ` Waiman Long
2016-02-29 11:21           ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-22  8:54   ` [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-22 10:20     ` Jason Low
2016-01-22 10:53       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-22 10:56         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-22 11:06           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-22 13:59             ` Waiman Long
2016-01-24  8:03               ` Ding Tianhong
2016-01-29  9:53                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-30  1:18                   ` Ding Tianhong
2016-02-01  3:29                     ` huang ying
2016-02-01  3:35                       ` Huang, Ying
2016-02-01 10:08                     ` [PATCH] locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-02 21:19                       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-02-03  7:10                         ` Ding Tianhong
2016-02-03 19:24                           ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-02-04  1:20                             ` Ding Tianhong
2016-02-12 18:33                               ` Waiman Long
2016-02-03 22:07                         ` Waiman Long
2016-02-04  1:35                       ` Jason Low
2016-02-04  8:55                         ` huang ying
2016-02-04 22:49                           ` Jason Low
2016-01-22 13:41     ` [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL Waiman Long
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-01-21  6:53 [PATCH RFC ] " Ding Tianhong
2016-01-21  7:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-01-21  9:04   ` Ding Tianhong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160122164630.GA1633@linux-uzut.site \
    --to=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
    --cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=dingtianhong@huawei.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=waiman.long@hpe.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.