Hello, On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Michael Blizek <mic...@michaelblizek.twilightparadox.com> wrote: > I have came upon an interesting situation where I am not sure about mutex > semantics. What I want to do is something like this: > > mutex_lock(&global_lock); > mutex_lock(small_lock); > > do_something_small_which_requires_both_locks(); > do_something_big_which_requires_only_small_lock(); > > mutex_unlock(small_lock); > mutex_unlock(&global_lock); > > I want to avoid holding the global lock while doing something_big. Can I do > something like this: >
Why not do this, i.e. acquire the locks in the other order, then release the global lock first: mutex_lock(small_lock); mutex_lock(&global_lock); do_something_small_which_requires_both_locks(); mutex_unlock(&global_lock); do_something_big_which_requires_only_small_lock(); mutex_unlock(small_lock); Regards, -- Leon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecar...@nl.linux.org Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
