On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 01:52 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 01:49:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 07:05:20AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > - spin_lock(>lock);
> > > + spin_lock(>lock); /* implies MB (A) */
> >
> > You need
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 01:49:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 07:05:20AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > From: Davidlohr Bueso
> >
> > In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if we know
> > beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 07:05:20AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso
>
> In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if we know
> beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. While the hash bucket's plist
> head is a cheap way of knowing this, we
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 07:05:20AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com
In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb-lock if we know
beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. While the hash bucket's plist
head is a cheap way of knowing
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 01:49:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 07:05:20AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com
In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb-lock if we know
beforehand that there are no tasks to be
On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 01:52 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 01:49:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 07:05:20AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
- spin_lock(hb-lock);
+ spin_lock(hb-lock); /* implies MB (A) */
You need
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 19:29 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 12:52 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 07:05 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > I thought someone, Peter Z?, had commented on these CONFIG_SMP bits. Are
> > they really necessary? Does
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 19:29 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 12:52 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 07:05 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
I thought someone, Peter Z?, had commented on these CONFIG_SMP bits. Are
they really necessary? Does
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 12:52 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 07:05 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > From: Davidlohr Bueso
> >
> > In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if we know
> > beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. While the hash
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 12:59 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 11:23 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > >
> > > In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if we
> > > know
> > > beforehand that
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 07:05 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso
>
> In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if we know
> beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. While the hash bucket's plist
> head is a cheap way of knowing this, we cannot rely
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 07:05 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com
In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb-lock if we know
beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. While the hash bucket's plist
head is a cheap way of knowing this, we
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 12:59 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 11:23 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb-lock if we
know
beforehand that
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 12:52 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 07:05 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com
In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb-lock if we know
beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. While the hash
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 11:23 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if we know
> > beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken.
>
> Btw, I think we could optimize this a bit
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if we know
> beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken.
Btw, I think we could optimize this a bit further for the wakeup case.
wake_futex() does a
From: Davidlohr Bueso
In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if we know
beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. While the hash bucket's plist
head is a cheap way of knowing this, we cannot rely 100% on it as there is a
racy window between the futex_wait call and
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com
In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb-lock if we know
beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. While the hash bucket's plist
head is a cheap way of knowing this, we cannot rely 100% on it as there is a
racy window between the
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb-lock if we know
beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken.
Btw, I think we could optimize this a bit further for the wakeup case.
wake_futex() does a
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 11:23 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb-lock if we know
beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken.
Btw, I think we could optimize this
20 matches
Mail list logo
