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:0.618 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site