lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: use spin_[un]lock instead of arch_spin_[un]lock

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:22:45 +0800
> Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Use spin_[un]lock instead of arch_spin_[un]lock in mutex-debug.h so
> > that we can collect the lock statistics of spin_lock_mutex from
> > /proc/lock_stat.

So, as per the discussion we don't want this patch, because we
are using raw locks there to keep mutex lockdep overhead low.
The value of lockdep-checking such a basic locking primitive is
minimal - it's rarely tweaked and if it breaks we won't have a
bootable kernel to begin with.

So instead I suggested a different patch: adding a comment to
explain why we don't lockdep-cover the mutex code spinlocks.

> Also, I believe your patch permits this cleanup:
>
> --- a/kernel/mutex-debug.h~mutex-use-spin_lock-instead-of-arch_spin_lock-fix
> +++ a/kernel/mutex-debug.h
> @@ -42,14 +42,12 @@ static inline void mutex_clear_owner(str
> struct mutex *l = container_of(lock, struct mutex, wait_lock); \
> \
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(in_interrupt()); \
> - local_irq_save(flags); \
> - spin_lock(lock); \
> + spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags); \

Yes, I mentioned that yesterday, but we really don't want the
change to begin with.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-25 09:41    [W:0.097 / U:3.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site