* nan chen <nach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/1/25 Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
>
> >
> > * Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:22:45 +0800
> > > Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan....@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
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Looks like in mutex.h, it does not disable local interrupt.
> But why the code disable local interrupt in mutex-debug.h?
To protect against preemption I suspect. preempt_disable() could
be used in the mutex-debug.h variant I suppose.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
