[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -v9][RFC] mutex: implement adaptive spinning

    * Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:

    > > Now you're forcing the slow-path on unlock. Maybe it was intentional,
    > > maybe it wasn't. Did you perhaps mean
    > >
    > > if (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->count, 1, 0) == 1) {
    > >
    > > here? I thought we agreed it was safe, if only because it should be
    > > equivalent to just having done "mutex_trylock()" instead of a "real"
    > > lock sequence.
    > Yes, that was an 'accident' from -v8, yes we did think the cmpxchg was
    > good, however I did get some spurious lockups on -v7, and I only noticed
    > the thing after I'd done most of the testing, so I decided to let it be
    > for now.
    > Let me put the cmpxchg back in and see if this is all still good (only
    > 3*2*2 configs to test :-).

    i saw sporadic lockups with -v7 too, so if you send a -v10 with Linus's
    sequence for the unlock it takes about an hour of testing to check whether
    it still occurs.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-13 17:43    [W:0.024 / U:17.880 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site