[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: recursive spinlocks. Shoot.
On Sun, 18 May 2003, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> This is essentially the same struct as mine. I used the pid of the task,
> where you use the address of the task. You use an atomic count, whereas
> I used an ordinary int, guarded by the embedded spinlock.
> > #define nestlock_lock(snl) \
> > do { \
> > if ((snl)->uniq == current) { \
> That would be able to read uniq while it is being written by something
> else (which it can, according to the code below). It needs protection.

No it does not, look better.

> > atomic_inc(&(snl)->count); \
> OK, that's the same.
> > } else { \
> > spin_lock(&(snl)->lock); \
> > atomic_inc(&(snl)->count); \
> > (snl)->uniq = current; \
> Hmm .. else we wait for the lock, and then set count and uniq, while
> somebody else may have entered and be reading it :-). You exit with

Nope, think about a case were it breaks. False negatives are not possible
because it is set by the same task and false positives either.

> Well, it's not assembler either, but at least it's easily comparable
> with the nonrecursive version. It's essentially got an extra if and
> an inc in the lock. That's all.

Well, there's a little difference. In case of contention, you loop with
your custom try lock while I used the optimized asm code inside spin_lock.
But again, I believe we didn't lose anything with the removal of this code
(nested/recursive locks) from the kernel.

- Davide

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.032 / U:1.480 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site