From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Nicolai Hähnle" <nhaehnle@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Nicolai Hähnle" <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <dev@mblankhorst.nl>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
"Chris Wilson" <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner optimistic spin loop
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 13:46:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4505b2ea-3d15-ca62-2fab-38d697d80ee5@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161206182935.GD3107@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 12/06/2016 01:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 11:03:28AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The mutex_spin_on_owner() function was originally marked noinline
>> because it could be a major consumer of CPU cycles in a contended lock.
>> Having it shown separately in the perf output will help the users have a
>> better understanding of what is consuming all the CPU cycles. So I would
>> still like to keep it this way.
> ah!, I tried to dig through history but couldn't find a reason for it.
>
>> If you have concern about additional latency for non-ww_mutex calls, one
>> alternative can be:
> That's pretty horrific :/
I am not totally against making mutex_spin_on_owner() an inline
function. If you think it is the right way to go, I am OK with that.
-Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-06 18:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1480601214-26583-1-git-send-email-nhaehnle@gmail.com>
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a NULL context Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:18 ` Chris Wilson
2016-12-01 15:14 ` Daniel Vetter
2016-12-01 16:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner optimistic spin loop Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:36 ` Chris Wilson
2016-12-06 15:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-06 16:03 ` Waiman Long
2016-12-06 18:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-06 18:46 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] locking/ww_mutex: Extract stamp comparison to __ww_mutex_stamp_after Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:42 ` Chris Wilson
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] locking/ww_mutex: Set use_ww_ctx even when locking without a context Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-06 15:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-06 15:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 13:17 ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-17 7:53 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2016-12-17 13:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 15:59 ` Chris Wilson
2016-12-16 14:21 ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-06 15:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 13:34 ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-06 16:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 14:19 ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-16 14:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 17:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 18:11 ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-16 20:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 22:35 ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-16 17:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-16 18:12 ` Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] locking/ww_mutex: Notify waiters that have to back off while adding tasks to wait list Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] locking/ww_mutex: Wake at most one waiter for back off when acquiring the lock Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] locking/ww_mutex: Yield to other waiters from optimistic spin Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] locking/mutex: Initialize mutex_waiter::ww_ctx with poison when debugging Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] Documentation/locking/ww_mutex: Update the design document Nicolai Hähnle
2016-12-01 14:06 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] [rfc] locking/ww_mutex: Always spin optimistically for the first waiter Nicolai Hähnle
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=4505b2ea-3d15-ca62-2fab-38d697d80ee5@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dev@mblankhorst.nl \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nhaehnle@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).