From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:54:30 -0600 Message-ID: <1231368870.6686.16.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> References: <87r63ljzox.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20090103191706.GA2002@parisc-linux.org> <1231242031.11687.97.camel@twins> <20090106121052.GA27232@elte.hu> <4963584A.4090805@novell.com> <20090106131643.GA15228@elte.hu> <1231248041.11687.107.camel@twins> <49636799.1010109@novell.com> <20090106214229.GD6741@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1231278275.11687.111.camel@twins> <1231279660.11687.121.camel@twins> <1231281801.11687.125.camel@twins> <1231283778.11687.136.camel@twins> <1231329783.11687.287.camel@twins> <1231347442.11687.344.camel@twins> <1231365115.11687.361.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Ingo Molnar , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 13:58 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Do we really have to re-do all that code every loop? > > No, you're right, we can just look up the cpu once. Which makes Andrew's > argument that "probe_kernel_address()" isn't in any hot path even more > true. Do you need to even do that if CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC is unset? Something like: #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC /* * Need to access the cpu field knowing that * DEBUG_PAGEALLOC could have unmapped it if * the mutex owner just released it and exited. */ if (probe_kernel_address(&thread->cpu, cpu)) break; #else cpu = thread->cpu; #endif Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center