On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:06:50 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manf...@colorfullife.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, Hi Peter, > > next version of the sem_lock() fixes: > The patches are again vs. tip. > > Patch 1 is ready for merging, Patch 2 is for review. > > - Patch 1 is the patch as in -next since January > It fixes the race that was found by Felix. > - Patch 2 removes the memory barriers that are part of the qspinlock > code. > - (The hysteresis patch would be patch 3. The risk of regressions > can't be ruled out, thus it must wait for benchmarks from real > workload tests) I think you're saying that if these two patches cause performance regressions, we will need ipc-sem-sem_lock-with-hysteresis.patch? Is that even necessary? If your testing shows that ipc-sem-sem_lock-with-hysteresis.patch makes things faster then in it goes, surely?
