lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: correct testing need_resched in mutex_spin_on_owner()
From
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 22:36 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>
>> If you are right, the following comment also in __mutex_lock_common()
>>
>>       for (;;) {
>>               struct task_struct *owner;
>>
>>               /*
>>                * If there's an owner, wait for it to either
>>                * release the lock or go to sleep.
>>                */
>>               owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
>>               if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner))
>>                       break;
>>
>> looks misleading too, but if owner is on this CPU, for what does we wait?
>
> huh, wtf!? it cannot be on this cpu, if it was we wouldn't be running
> the above code but whatever owner was doing.
>
> So my argument was, it cannot be on this cpu, therefore, by checking it
> is on a cpu, we check its on a different cpu.
>
> And I really don't see how any of that is related to the above.
>
Oh, it looks you are willing to rethink about testing need_resched?

thanks
Hillf
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-07 16:49    [W:0.065 / U:0.836 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site