Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1619160 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-08 01:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-04-08 01:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH -v6 10/13] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2017-04-08 01:40 +0200
| From | Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 01:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH -v6 10/13] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() |
| Message-ID | <ttLDX-5Wh-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:30:59PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:35:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > With the ultimate goal of keeping rt_mutex wait_list and futex_q > > waiters consistent we want to split 'rt_mutex_futex_lock()' into finer > > I want to be clear that I understand why this patch is needed - as it actually > moves both the waiter removal and the rt_waiter freeing under the hb lock while > you've been working to be less dependent on the hb lock. > > Was inconsistency of the rt_mutex wait_list and the futex_q waiters a problem > before this patch series, or do the previous patches make this one necessary? Ah, this is a follow-on to the issue described in 7 of 10. Nevermind. -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web