From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933482AbdDGXfm (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 19:35:42 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:37397 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751981AbdDGXfe (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 19:35:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 16:35:28 -0700 From: Darren Hart To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, juri.lelli@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, xlpang@redhat.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jdesfossez@efficios.com, bristot@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH -v6 10/13] futex,rt_mutex: Restructure rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock() Message-ID: <20170407233528.GB14673@fury> References: <20170322103547.756091212@infradead.org> <20170322104152.001659630@infradead.org> <20170407233059.GA14673@fury> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170407233059.GA14673@fury> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:30:59PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:35:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > With the ultimate goal of keeping rt_mutex wait_list and futex_q > > waiters consistent we want to split 'rt_mutex_futex_lock()' into finer > > I want to be clear that I understand why this patch is needed - as it actually > moves both the waiter removal and the rt_waiter freeing under the hb lock while > you've been working to be less dependent on the hb lock. > > Was inconsistency of the rt_mutex wait_list and the futex_q waiters a problem > before this patch series, or do the previous patches make this one necessary? Ah, this is a follow-on to the issue described in 7 of 10. Nevermind. -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center