lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question about policy of calling lockdep functions in trylocks
On 03/02/10 18:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 17:44 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a question about policy of callings lockdep functions in trylocks.
>>
>> Normal locks like __raw_spin_lock are defined like this:
>>
>> static inline void __raw_spin_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
>> {
>> preempt_disable();
>> spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
>> LOCK_CONTENDED(lock, do_raw_spin_trylock, do_raw_spin_lock);
>> }
>>
>> And LOCK_CONTENDED is defined:
>> #define LOCK_CONTENDED(_lock, try, lock) \
>> do { \
>> if (!try(_lock)) { \
>> lock_contended(&(_lock)->dep_map, _RET_IP_); \
>> lock(_lock); \
>> } \
>> lock_acquired(&(_lock)->dep_map, _RET_IP_); \
>> } while (0)
>>
>> So, acquiring and releasing lock with no contention calls lockdep
>> functions like this:
>>
>> lock_acquire -> lock_acquired -> lock_release
>>
>> And acquiring and releasing lock with contention calls lockdep functions
>> like this:
>>
>> lock_acquire -> lock_contended -> lock_acquired -> lock_release
>>
>> But I found that locks with try like __raw_spin_trylock is defined like
>> this:
>>
>> static inline int __raw_spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
>> {
>> preempt_disable();
>> if (do_raw_spin_trylock(lock)) {
>> spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
>> return 1;
>> }
>> preempt_enable();
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> So, trying acquiring and releasing lock with no contention calls lockdep
>> functions like this:
>>
>> lock_acquire -> lock_release
>>
>> And failed trying acquiring calls no lockdep function.
>>
>> I felt that policy of calling lockdep functions is strange.
>> Trylocks should be like this:
>>
>> static inline int __raw_spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
>> {
>> preempt_disable();
>> spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
>> if (do_raw_spin_trylock(lock)) {
>> spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
>> lock_acquired(&lock->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>> return 1;
>> }
>> lock_contended(&lock->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>> preempt_enable();
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> Did you mean to call acquire twice?

Sorry, this is my mistake.
I've forgot to remove spin_acquire() after do_raw_spin_trylock().

>
>>
>> This is my question.
>> Are there some reasons current calling lockdep functions of trylocks?
>> If not, can I change these trylocks like I described above?
>>
>> The reason why I'm asking about it is perf lock.
>> For state machine of perf lock, these event sequenses are very confusable.
>> Because sequence of trylock is subset of normal lock. This is ambiguity.
>
> Well, trylocks cannot contend, so the lock_contended() call doesn't make
> sense, I don't think it will confuse lockstat, since acquire will simply
> reset the state again, but it will waste cycles, nor is there a reason
> to call acquired without first having call contended. So no.
>
> What exactly is the problem, the lack of callbacks for a failed trylock?
> Why would you want one?
>
> Because other than that I see no problem, you get an acquire(.try=1) and
> a release() to match and lockstat measure and accounts the hold-time.

Ah, I've forgot about try and read parameters of lock_acquire().
These parameters are enough things for me.
perf lock can separate event sequences of normal locks and trylocks with
these.

Thanks!
Hitoshi




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-02 14:45    [W:0.047 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site