Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] mutex: Make more scalable by doing less atomicoperations

[Waiman Long]

On 04/10/2013 06:31 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>  wrote:
>
> > > That said, the MUTEX_SHOULD_XCHG_COUNT macro should die. Why shouldn't all
> > > architectures just consider negative counts to be locked? It doesn't matter
> > > that some might only ever see -1.
> > I think so too. However, I don't have the machines to test out other
> > architectures. The MUTEX_SHOULD_XCHG_COUNT is just a safety measure to make sure
> > that my code won't screw up the kernel in other architectures. Once it is
> > confirmed that a negative count other than -1 is fine for all the other
> > architectures, the macro can certainly go.
> I'd suggest to just remove it in an additional patch, Cc:-ing
> linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The change is very likely to be fine, if not then it's
> easy to revert it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	Ingo
Yes, I can do that. So can I put your name down as reviewer or ack'er 
for the 1st patch?

BTW, I am planning to change the code to mimic the 
__mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock()  macro so that I only need to update 
the asm/mutex.h only instead of modifying the kernel/mutex.h as well. 
Hope that will make the change more acceptable to others in case we have 
to keep it.

Regards,
Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/