lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:28 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
    > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

    > > in the unlikely case we schedule(), that seems expensive enough to want
    > > to make the spin case ever so slightly faster.
    >
    > OK, that makes sense, but I would comment that. Otherwise, it just looks
    > like another misuse of the unlikely annotation.

    OK, sensible enough.

    > > > Should we need to do a "get_cpu" or something? Couldn't the CPU disappear
    > > > between these two calls. Or does it do a stop-machine and the preempt
    > > > disable will protect us?
    > >
    > > Did you miss the preempt_disable() a bit up?
    >
    > No, let me rephrase it better. Does the preempt_disable protect against
    > another CPU from going off line? Does taking a CPU off line do a
    > stop_machine?

    Yes and yes.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-08 16:57    [W:4.096 / U:0.644 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site