From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: Apply adaptive spinning on mutex_trylock()
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:52:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1301485924.4859.181.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1301485262-sup-5247@think>
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 07:46 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> In this case, the only thing we're really missing is a way to mutex_lock
> without the cond_resched()
So you're trying to explicitly avoid a voluntary preemption point? Seems
like a bad idea, normally people add those :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-30 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-23 15:37 [RFC PATCH] mutex: Apply adaptive spinning on mutex_trylock() Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 15:40 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 15:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-23 15:52 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 19:46 ` Andrey Kuzmin
2011-03-24 8:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 3:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-25 10:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-24 9:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] Subject: mutex: Separate out mutex_spin() Tejun Heo
2011-03-24 9:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] mutex: Apply adaptive spinning on mutex_trylock() Tejun Heo
2011-03-25 3:39 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-25 4:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-25 6:53 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-25 13:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-25 13:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-25 11:13 ` Andrey Kuzmin
2011-03-25 13:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-25 13:50 ` Andrey Kuzmin
2011-03-25 14:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-25 19:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-25 10:12 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-25 10:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-29 16:37 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-29 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-29 17:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-30 8:17 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-30 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-30 11:46 ` Chris Mason
2011-03-30 11:52 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-03-30 11:59 ` Chris Mason
2011-03-24 9:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] Subject: mutex: Separate out mutex_spin() Tejun Heo
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=1301485924.4859.181.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).