Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutex: Reduce chance of setting HANDOFF bit on
 unlocked mutex
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Xu, Yanfei" <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
References: <20210629201138.31507-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <YNxFkD8qzex9MvQp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ecc0cc97-23ca-5de3-2a12-ed50aa12548c@redhat.com>
 <YNx4IWfE/wpFFh0h@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Message-ID: <139a3dc2-1693-5e33-3d2d-77a5651d92e1@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:13:06 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YNx4IWfE/wpFFh0h@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 6/30/21 9:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 09:50:11AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> The code looks good to me. It is an even better approach to make sure that
>> the HANDOFF will never be set on an unlocked mutex.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Thanks, what about that XXX? Should we not check sigpending before doing
> the optimistic spinning thing?
>
Sorry, I missed the XXX comment:-)

This is a generic problem as other waiters that go into the spinning 
loop also don't check for sigpending. On the other hand, I am fine with 
doing the pending signal check before doing the optimistic spinning.

Cheers,
Longman