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 S1755666AbcHWUtX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:49:23 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:52874 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754944AbcHWUtW (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:49:22 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:32:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@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>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@hpe.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid
 starvation
Message-ID: <20160823203204.GU10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160823124617.015645861@infradead.org>
 <20160823124856.898171453@infradead.org>
 <57BCA869.1050501@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57BCA869.1050501@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:47:53PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 08/23/2016 08:46 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >N
> >@@ -573,8 +600,14 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
> >  		schedule_preempt_disabled();
> >  		spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
> >
> >+		if (__mutex_owner(lock) == current)
> >+			break;
> >+
> >  		if (__mutex_trylock(lock))
> >  			break;
> >+
> >+		if (__mutex_waiter_is_first(lock,&waiter))
> >+			__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> >  	}
> >  	__set_task_state(task, TASK_RUNNING);
> >
> >
> 
> You may want to think about doing some spinning while the owner is active
> instead of going back to sleep again here.

For sure; I just didn't bother pulling in your patches. I didn't want to
sink in more time in case people really hated on 1/3 ;-)