From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
mingo@kernel.org, aswin@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip/master 3/7] locking/mcs: Remove obsolete comment
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:57:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140728165733.GU19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1406566438.25428.6.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 685 bytes --]
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:53:58AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Well, it's not hard to see where the contention is when working on
> locking issues with perf. With mutexes there are only two sources,
> either the task is just spinning trying to get the lock, or its gone to
> the slowpath, and you can see a lot of contention on the wait_lock.
>
> So unless I'm missing something, I don't think we'd need to make this
> noinline again -- although I forget why it was changed in the first
> place.
Not to mention that there's no actual caller of this function in the
entire kernel ;-) Currently its just 'documentation' describing what an
actual MCS lock looks like.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-28 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-28 5:18 [PATCH -tip/master 1/7] locking/mutex: Unify arguments in lock/unlock slowpaths Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 2/7] locking/mutex: Document quick lock release when unlocking Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-30 15:10 ` Jason Low
2014-07-30 18:20 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 3/7] locking/mcs: Remove obsolete comment Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 16:49 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 16:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-07-28 17:19 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-28 17:49 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 18:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-28 21:02 ` Jason Low
2014-07-30 15:11 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 4/7] locking/mutex: Refactor optimistic spinning code Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-28 16:39 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 16:41 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-29 2:55 ` [PATCH -tip/master v2] " Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-29 3:41 ` Jason Low
2014-07-29 4:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-29 4:51 ` [PATCH -tip/master v3] " Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-30 15:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 4/7] " Jason Low
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 5/7] locking/mutex: Use MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER when appropriate Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-30 15:19 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH 6/7] locking: Move docs into Documentation/locking/ Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 7/7] Documentation: Update locking/mutex-design.txt disadvantages Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 18:09 ` Jason Low
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=20140728165733.GU19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.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