From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: jason.low2@hpe.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
jason.low2@hp.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:35:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1471970103.2381.51.camel@j-VirtualBox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160823161750.GD31186@linux-80c1.suse>
On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 09:17 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> What's the motivation here? Is it just to unify counter and owner for
> the starvation issue? If so, is this really the path we wanna take for
> a small debug corner case?
And we thought our other patch was a bit invasive :-)
> I have not looked at the patches yet, but are there any performance minutia
> to be aware of?
This would remove all of the mutex architecture specific optimizations
in the (common) fastpath, so that is one thing that could reduce
performance. I'll run some benchmarks to see what some of the
performance impacts of these patches would be.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-23 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-23 12:46 [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 12:46 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking/mutex: Rework mutex::owner Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 19:55 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-23 20:52 ` Tim Chen
2016-08-23 21:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 21:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 20:17 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-23 20:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-24 9:56 ` Will Deacon
2016-08-24 15:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-24 16:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-24 16:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-08-23 12:46 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] locking/mutex: Allow MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER when DEBUG_MUTEXES Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 12:46 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid starvation Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <57BCA869.1050501@hpe.com>
2016-08-23 20:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-24 19:50 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-25 8:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 16:17 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] locking/mutex: Rewrite basic mutex Davidlohr Bueso
2016-08-23 16:35 ` Jason Low [this message]
2016-08-23 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 19:36 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-23 20:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 22:34 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-24 1:13 ` Jason Low
2016-08-25 12:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-25 15:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-25 16:33 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-25 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-27 18:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-08-25 19:11 ` huang ying
2016-08-25 19:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-23 18:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-23 20:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=1471970103.2381.51.camel@j-VirtualBox \
--to=jason.low2@hpe.com \
--cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dingtianhong@huawei.com \
--cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hpe.com \
/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