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 S1751778AbcAVDNa (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:13:30 -0500
Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:56770 "EHLO
	e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751091AbcAVDNV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:13:21 -0500
X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com
X-IBM-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:13:24 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
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: <20160122031324.GI3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <56A0A4ED.3070308@huawei.com>
 <1453411389.30844.38.camel@schen9-desk2.jf.intel.com>
 <20160122024108.GH3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160122024854.GB23224@linux-uzut.site>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160122024854.GB23224@linux-uzut.site>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 16012203-0005-0000-0000-00001BAB2C6C
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:48:54PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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 :)

Plus I suspected that you wanted some extra email.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul