Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1448720
| From | Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled |
| Date | 2016-07-22 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rXNwB-117-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <rWRCh-58W-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rWZTc-21W-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <rXtex-4cZ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rXN3A-Qn-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <rXN3A-Qn-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | Intel |
On Fri, 2016-07-22 at 11:03 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Waiman Long wrote: > > > I think making mutex_trylock() fail maybe a bit too far. Do we > > really > > have any real workload that cause starvation problem because of > > that. > > Code that does mutex_trylock() in a loop can certainly cause lock > > starvation, but it is not how mutex_trylock() is supposed to be > > used. > > We can't build in safeguard for all the possible abuses of the > > mutex > > APIs. > > True, and that's actually why I think that 'fixing' the > !SPIN_ON_OWNER case > is a bit too far in the first place: most of the archs that will care > about > this already have ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW. The extra code for > dealing with > this is not worth it imo. SPIN_ON_OWNER is also disabled in case of DEBUG_MUTEXES, which is the config where I wanted to avoid starvation in the first place. --Imre
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC] locking/mutex: Fix starvation of sleeping waiters Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> - 2016-07-18 18:20 +0200
Re: [RFC] locking/mutex: Fix starvation of sleeping waiters Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-07-18 19:20 +0200
Re: [RFC] locking/mutex: Fix starvation of sleeping waiters Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-18 19:50 +0200
Re: [RFC] locking/mutex: Fix starvation of sleeping waiters Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> - 2016-07-19 19:00 +0200
Re: [RFC] locking/mutex: Fix starvation of sleeping waiters Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-20 01:10 +0200
[RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-20 01:20 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-20 06:50 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> - 2016-07-20 15:40 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-21 23:00 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-07-22 20:10 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> - 2016-07-22 20:40 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-07-22 21:30 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> - 2016-07-22 22:00 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-22 00:40 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> - 2016-07-22 11:40 +0200
Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is disabled Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-22 20:50 +0200
csiph-web