On 04/15/2016 03:08 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 04/14/2016 11:33 PM, Luck, Tony wrote: >>> The only purpose of down_try_lock() followed by up() seems to be to wake >>> up a possible reader. This patch replaces it with a wake-queue. There is >>> no locking around cpumask_empty() and the test is re-done in case there >>> was no hit. >>> With wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq(,&data_saved_lock) we would probably >>> be able to get rid of the `retry` label. However we still can return CPU >>> X which is valid now but later (after the lock dropped) the event may >>> have been removed because the CPU went offline. >> >> Do you have ia64 h/w to test this - or do you need me to try it out to >> make sure the reality matches the expected behavior? > > no ia64 here. Tony? Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|