From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 05/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, mutex-core.patch
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:59:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051221155934.GB7375@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43A98101.364DB5CF@tv-sign.ru>
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:
> > +__mutex_wakeup_waiter(struct mutex *lock __IP_DECL__)
> > +{
> > + struct mutex_waiter *waiter;
> > ...
> > + if (!waiter->woken) {
> > + waiter->woken = 1;
> > + wake_up_process(waiter->ti->task);
> > + }
>
> Is it optimization? If yes - why? From mutex.h:
>
> - only one task can hold the mutex at a time
> - only the owner can unlock the mutex
>
> So, how can this help?
yes, it's an optimization. I've removed it from the latest queue because
it didnt trigger all that often, but the optimization is valid: while we
have a 'waiter in flight', another (fast) task might grab the mutex, and
might release it - in which case it could attempt to wake up the waiter
again - which this flag optimizes.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-21 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-19 1:37 Ingo Molnar
2005-12-19 3:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-19 4:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-19 4:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-19 4:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-19 5:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-19 5:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-19 16:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-19 5:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-19 16:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-19 5:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-21 16:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-12-21 15:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-21 17:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-12-21 18:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-21 15:59 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-12-21 16:02 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051221155934.GB7375@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arjanv@infradead.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®