From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753572AbaCKPY0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:24:26 -0400 Received: from g4t3427.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.55]:22450 "EHLO g4t3427.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751583AbaCKPYZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:24:25 -0400 Message-ID: <1394551460.11149.6.camel@j-VirtualBox> Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] locking/mutexes: Modify the way optimistic spinners are queued From: Jason Low To: mingo@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de Cc: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:24:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1390936396-3962-3-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 05:41 -0700, tip-bot for Jason Low wrote: > diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c > index e6d646b..82dad2c 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c > @@ -403,9 +403,9 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass, > if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock)) > goto slowpath; > > + mcs_spin_lock(&lock->mcs_lock, &node); > for (;;) { > struct task_struct *owner; > - struct mcs_spinlock node; Hi Peter, Ingo, The "struct mcs_spinlock node" still needs to be moved to the beginning of __mutex_lock_common() right?