From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks, v2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:54:36 +0200 Message-ID: <1365094476.2609.123.camel@laptop> References: <20130228102452.15191.22673.stgit@patser> <20130228102502.15191.14146.stgit@patser> <1364900432.18374.24.camel@laptop> <515AF1C1.7080508@canonical.com> <1364921954.20640.22.camel@laptop> <1365076908.2609.94.camel@laptop> <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Maarten Lankhorst , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Well, it was a good read and I'm rather happy that we agree on the > ww_ctx > thing (whatever it's called in the end), even though we have slightly > different reasons for it. Yeah, I tried various weirdness to get out from under it, but the whole progress/fairness thing made it rather hard. Ideally you'd be able to use some existing scheduler state since its the same goal, but the whole wakeup-retry muck makes that hard. > I don't really have a useful idea to make the retry handling for users > more rusty-compliant though, and I'm still unhappy with all current > naming > proposals ;-) Ah, naming,.. yeah I'm not too terribly attached to most of them. I just want to avoid something that's reasonably well known to mean something different. Furthermore, since we use the wound/wait symmetry breaking it would make sense for that to appear somewhere in the name. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:56629 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763193Ab3DDQys (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:54:48 -0400 Received: from dhcp-089-099-019-018.chello.nl ([89.99.19.18] helo=dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UNnR2-0000yU-6C for linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:54:48 +0000 Message-ID: <1365094476.2609.123.camel@laptop> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mutex: add support for reservation style locks, v2 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:54:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <20130228102452.15191.22673.stgit@patser> <20130228102502.15191.14146.stgit@patser> <1364900432.18374.24.camel@laptop> <515AF1C1.7080508@canonical.com> <1364921954.20640.22.camel@laptop> <1365076908.2609.94.camel@laptop> <20130404133123.GW2228@phenom.ffwll.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Maarten Lankhorst , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20130404165436.89FtL0EE863WHcTAqsDrWriY5IHflgLB24sy4VSVmgU@z> On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Well, it was a good read and I'm rather happy that we agree on the > ww_ctx > thing (whatever it's called in the end), even though we have slightly > different reasons for it. Yeah, I tried various weirdness to get out from under it, but the whole progress/fairness thing made it rather hard. Ideally you'd be able to use some existing scheduler state since its the same goal, but the whole wakeup-retry muck makes that hard. > I don't really have a useful idea to make the retry handling for users > more rusty-compliant though, and I'm still unhappy with all current > naming > proposals ;-) Ah, naming,.. yeah I'm not too terribly attached to most of them. I just want to avoid something that's reasonably well known to mean something different. Furthermore, since we use the wound/wait symmetry breaking it would make sense for that to appear somewhere in the name.