On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 13:54 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > Cc: Ming Lei
> > Cc: Davidlohr Bueso
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Low
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Ming Lei
Thanks!
> > static noinl
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 20:44 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 20:31 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> >
> > Just in case, here's the updated patch which addresses Linus's comments
> > and with a changelog.
> >
> > Note: The chang
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
>
> Just in case, here's the updated patch which addresses Linus's comments
> and with a changelog.
>
> Note: The changelog says that it fixes (locking/rwsem: Avoid deceiving
> lock spinners), t
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 20:31 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
>
> Just in case, here's the updated patch which addresses Linus's comments
> and with a changelog.
>
> Note: The changelog says that it fixes (locking/rwsem: Avoid deceiving
> lock spinners)
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
Just in case, here's the updated patch which addresses Linus's comments
and with a changelog.
Note: The changelog says that it fixes (locking/rwsem: Avoid deceiving
lock spinners), though I still haven't seen full confirmation that it
addresses
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 11:39 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 11:08 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:10 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 201
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 11:19 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 18:26 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> >>
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 11:08 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Jason Low wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:10 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Davidlohr Bueso
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat,
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 18:26 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> >> That's not what this is about. New lock _owners_ need to wor
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 11:08 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:10 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 09:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 06 M
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 11:08 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:10 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 09:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 06 M
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 18:26 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> That's not what this is about. New lock _owners_ need to worry about
> >
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:10 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 09:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:15:37 -0800
>> >> Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> >>
>>
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:10 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 09:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:15:37 -0800
> >> Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
>
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 18:26 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> That's not what this is about. New lock _owners_ need to worry about
> ^^^ make that "need not"
Sorry, could you explain a b
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 18:26 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> That's not what this is about. New lock _owners_ need to worry about
^^^ make that "need not"
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:10 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 09:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:15:37 -0800
> >> Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
>
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 09:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:15:37 -0800
>> Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
>> > > In owner_running() there are 2 conditions that would make
On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 09:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:15:37 -0800
> Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > > In owner_running() there are 2 conditions that would make it return
> > > false: if the owner changed or if the owner is
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 14:15 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > In owner_running() there are 2 conditions that would make it return
> > false: if the owner changed or if the owner is not running. However,
> > that patch continues spinning if there
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:15:37 -0800
Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > In owner_running() there are 2 conditions that would make it return
> > false: if the owner changed or if the owner is not running. However,
> > that patch continues spinning if the
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> >
> > + while (true) {
> > + if (sem->owner != owner)
> > + break;
>
> That looks *really* odd.
>
> Why is this not
>
> while (sem->own
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> In owner_running() there are 2 conditions that would make it return
> false: if the owner changed or if the owner is not running. However,
> that patch continues spinning if there is a "new owner" but it does not
> take into account that we may
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Jason Low wrote:
>
> + while (true) {
> + if (sem->owner != owner)
> + break;
That looks *really* odd.
Why is this not
while (sem->owner == owner) {
Also, this "barrier()" now lost the comment:
> +
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 11:29 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Agreed, this is an issue we need to address, though we're just trying to
> figure out if the change to rwsem_can_spin_on_owner() in "commit:
> 37e9562453b" is really the one that's causing the issue.
>
> For example, it looks lik
25 matches
Mail list logo
