lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question regarding mutex locking
Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 11/28/2007 11:45 PM:

> Larry Finger wrote, On 11/28/2007 04:41 PM:
>
>> Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> If a particular routine needs to lock a mutex, but it may be entered with that mutex already locked,
>>>> would the following code be SMP safe?
>>>>
>>>> hold_lock = mutex_trylock()
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> if (hold_lock)
>>>> mutex_unlock()
>>> When two CPUs may enter the critical region at the same time, what is
>>> the point of the mutex? Also, the first CPU may unlock the mutex while
>>> the second one is still inside the critical region.
>> Thank you for that answer. I think that I'm finally beginning to understand.
>
> Probably it would be faster without these "...", which look like
> no man's land...
>
> hold_lock = mutex_trylock()
> if (hold_lock) {
> /* SMP safe */
> ...
> mutex_unlock()
> } else {
> /* SMP unsafe */
> ...
> /* maybe try again after some break or check */


OOPS! Of course, since it can be called with this lock held,
any break is not enough: we can only check if there is a
possibility that another thread is holding the lock.

> }
>
> Regards,
> Jarek P.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-11-28 23:55    [W:0.045 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site