Message-ID: <1401913857.2232.6.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] locking/mutex: Correct documentation on mutex
 optimistic spinning
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
        peter@hurleysoftware.com, riel@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        walken@google.com, Waiman.Long@hp.com, aswin@hp.com,
        scott.norton@hp.com, chegu_vinod@hp.com
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 13:30:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1401912696.13877.5.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
References: <1401908911-8947-1-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com>
	 <1401908911-8947-3-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com>
	 <1401912696.13877.5.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 13:11 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > The mutex optimistic spinning documentation states that we spin for
> > acquisition when we find that there are no pending waiters. However,
> > in actuality, whether or not there are waiters for the mutex doesn't
> > determine if we will spin for it.
> > 
> > This patch removes that statement and also adds a comment which
> > mentions that we spin for the mutex while we don't need to reschedule.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
> 
> I think this could go in with v4 of the mutex doc rewrite patch...
> guessing for 3.17 now.

Yeah, this patch could be for 3.17.

Thanks,
Jason

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/