Re: [PATCH] kernel/timer.c: using spin_lock_irqsave instead of spin_lock + local_irq_save, especially when CONFIG_LOCKDEP not defined

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote:

> On 06/19/2013 05:59 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I'm well aware how that works. And there is no difference whether you
> > do:
> > 
> >     local_irq_save(flags);
> >     spin_lock(&lock);
> > or
> >     spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
> 
> if CONFIG_LOCKDEP is not defined, they are not semantically the same.

Care to explain _your_ spinlock semantics to me?

The factual ones are:

    spin_lock_irqsave() returns with the lock held, interrupts and
    preemption disabled. 

    spin_lock() returns with the lock held, preemption disabled. It
    does not affect interrupt disabled/enabled state

So
        local_irq_save(flags);
        spin_lock(&lock);

is semantically the same as 

        spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);

And this is completely independent of LOCKDEP.

Thanks,

        tglx

    
--
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/