From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752424AbcAVCtQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:49:16 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39065 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751224AbcAVCtD (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:49:03 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:48:54 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
        Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list
 is not NULL.
Message-ID: <20160122024854.GB23224@linux-uzut.site>
References: <56A0A4ED.3070308@huawei.com>
 <1453411389.30844.38.camel@schen9-desk2.jf.intel.com>
 <20160122024108.GH3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160122024108.GH3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

>I did some testing, which exposed it to the 0day test robot, which
>did note some performance differences.  I was hoping that it would
>clear up some instability from other patches, but no such luck.  ;-)

Oh, that explains why we got a performance regression report :)

Thanks,
Davidlohr