Re: kern/60739 (Turnstile priority inheritance short-circuits walking of waiter chain when trylock fails)

["loicgre%gmail.com@localhost via gnats" <gnats-admin%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR kern/60739; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: loicgre%gmail.com@localhost
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: kern/60739 (Turnstile priority inheritance short-circuits
 walking of waiter chain when trylock fails)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 14:38:53 -0400

 On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 12:40:18PM +0000, riastradh%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote:
 >Synopsis: Turnstile priority inheritance short-circuits walking of waiter chain when trylock fails
 >
 >State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
 >State-Changed-By: riastradh%NetBSD.org@localhost
 >State-Changed-When: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 12:40:17 +0000
 >State-Changed-Why:
 >Candidate fix commmitted -- I kept the optimization as long as we have
 >never failed a trylock and restarted, and added your comment.  How
 >does it look now?
 Just checked out the fix, looks good to me! Thank you for
 addressing this so promptly.
 >
 >(Also, out of curiosity: how did you find this?)
 I would love to be able to tell you I was running NetBSD on some huge
 machine and noticing latency spikes, but alas the answer is more boring.
 I noticed that I had made the same (incorrect) assumption in my own code
 and remembered that I had "inspired" myself from the NetBSD turnstile
 code, so I checked upstream whether or not that condition was there, and
 it was!
 >
 >
 >