Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1442906

Re: [PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:06:50 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew, Hi Peter,
> 
> next version of the sem_lock() fixes:
> The patches are again vs. tip.
> 
> Patch 1 is ready for merging, Patch 2 is for review.
> 
> - Patch 1 is the patch as in -next since January
>   It fixes the race that was found by Felix.
> - Patch 2 removes the memory barriers that are part of the qspinlock
>   code.
> - (The hysteresis patch would be patch 3. The risk of regressions
>   can't be ruled out, thus it must wait for benchmarks from real
>   workload tests)

I think you're saying that if these two patches cause performance
regressions, we will need ipc-sem-sem_lock-with-hysteresis.patch?

Is that even necessary?  If your testing shows that
ipc-sem-sem_lock-with-hysteresis.patch makes things faster then in it
goes, surely?  

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-07-13 07:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-07-14 00:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/2] ipc/sem.c: sem_lock fixes Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-07-14 18:50 +0200

csiph-web