Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] rwsem: more agressive lock stealing in rwsem_down_write_failed

2013-03-28 Thread Rik van Riel
On 03/15/2013 06:54 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: Some small code simplifications can be achieved by doing more agressive lock stealing: - When rwsem_down_write_failed() notices that there are no active locks (and thus no thread to wake us if we decided to sleep), it used to wake the first

Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] rwsem: more agressive lock stealing in rwsem_down_write_failed

2013-03-28 Thread Rik van Riel
On 03/15/2013 06:54 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote: Some small code simplifications can be achieved by doing more agressive lock stealing: - When rwsem_down_write_failed() notices that there are no active locks (and thus no thread to wake us if we decided to sleep), it used to wake the first

[PATCH v2 06/13] rwsem: more agressive lock stealing in rwsem_down_write_failed

2013-03-15 Thread Michel Lespinasse
Some small code simplifications can be achieved by doing more agressive lock stealing: - When rwsem_down_write_failed() notices that there are no active locks (and thus no thread to wake us if we decided to sleep), it used to wake the first queued process. However, stealing the lock is also

[PATCH v2 06/13] rwsem: more agressive lock stealing in rwsem_down_write_failed

2013-03-15 Thread Michel Lespinasse
Some small code simplifications can be achieved by doing more agressive lock stealing: - When rwsem_down_write_failed() notices that there are no active locks (and thus no thread to wake us if we decided to sleep), it used to wake the first queued process. However, stealing the lock is also