Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] locking/mutex: Ensure forward progress of waiter-spinner

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] locking/mutex: Ensure forward progress of waiter-spinner
Date	2016-08-10 21:20 +0200
Message-ID	<s4HcJ-NR-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rWnux-2E0-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rWnux-2E0-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <s3WGR-4qo-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <s4HcJ-NR-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 02:00:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >Alternative might be to use the LSB of mutex::owner, but that's going to
> >be somewhat icky too.
> 
> I was thinking about doing that. However, the owner field is used in quite a
> number of places. It may be a bit risky to change all of them.

Agreed.

> >I'm not sure the 32bit platforms are going to be excited about growing
> >struct mutex...
> 
> Or we can make this a 64-bit architecture specific change if the increase in
> mutex size is a real concern. Actually, we don't need to use a list_head
> structure for wait_list. It can be just a pointer to mutex_waiter that has
> the list_head structure. This can save a pointer from the structure.

Just grow the thing, we can poke at it later if we get complaints.

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

Thread

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] locking/mutex: Ensure forward progress of  waiter-spinner Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-08-08 19:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] locking/mutex: Ensure forward progress of  waiter-spinner Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-08-10 21:20 +0200

csiph-web