On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:55:22AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:31:39AM +1100, Singh, Balbir wrote: > > On 18/11/20 10:19 am, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > From: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > > > > > > In preparation of playing games with rq->lock, abstract the thing > > > using an accessor. > > > > > > > Could you clarify games? I presume the intention is to redefine the scope > > of the lock based on whether core sched is enabled or not? I presume patch > > 4/32 has the details. > > Your line wrapping broke, I fixed it. >
Sorry, I've been using thunderbird from time to time and even though I set the options specified in the Documentation (email-clients), it's not working as expected. > That is in fact the game. By wrapping it, the nature of the locking is > dynamic based on whether core sched is enabled or not (both statically and > dynamically). > My point was that the word game does not do justice to the change, some details around how this abstractions helps based on the (re)definition of rq with coresched might help. Balbir Singh.
