Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:13:05 +0800 | From | Yuanhan Liu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: use spin_[un]lock instead of arch_spin_[un]lock |
| |
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:58:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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. > > > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > kernel/mutex-debug.h | 4 ++-- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/mutex-debug.h b/kernel/mutex-debug.h > > index 0799fd3..556c0bc 100644 > > --- a/kernel/mutex-debug.h > > +++ b/kernel/mutex-debug.h > > @@ -43,13 +43,13 @@ static inline void mutex_clear_owner(struct mutex *lock) > > \ > > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(in_interrupt()); \ > > local_irq_save(flags); \ > > - arch_spin_lock(&(lock)->rlock.raw_lock);\ > > + spin_lock(lock); \ > > But in that case it could probably use the spin_lock_irqsave() > primitive, right?
Right, in that case I should use spin_lock_irqsave.
But one question, why we use spin_lock at kernel/mutex.h, while use 'local_irq_save(); arch_spin_lock' at kernel/mutex-debug.h?
Shouldn't we keep it consistent? Say use spin_lock_irqsave?
Thanks.
--yliu > > > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(l->magic != l); \ > > } while (0) > > > > #define spin_unlock_mutex(lock, flags) \ > > do { \ > > - arch_spin_unlock(&(lock)->rlock.raw_lock); \ > > + spin_unlock(lock); \ > > local_irq_restore(flags); \ > > preempt_check_resched(); \ > > And here spin_unlock_irqrestore(). > > Thanks, > > Ingo
| |