Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Feb 2022 15:17:38 -0500 | Subject | Re: [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from lockdep/lock_stat (v1) | From | Waiman Long <> |
| |
On 2/9/22 14:45, Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:28 AM Mathieu Desnoyers > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: >> ----- On Feb 9, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Namhyung Kim namhyung@kernel.org wrote: >>> I'm also concerning dynamic allocated locks in a data structure. >>> If we keep the info in a hash table, we should delete it when the >>> lock is gone. I'm not sure we have a good place to hook it up all. >> I was wondering about this use case as well. Can we make it mandatory to >> declare the lock "class" (including the name) statically, even though the >> lock per-se is allocated dynamically ? Then the initialization of the lock >> embedded within the data structure would simply refer to the lock class >> definition. > Isn't it still the same if we have static lock classes that the entry needs > to be deleted from the hash table when it frees the data structure? > I'm more concerned about free than alloc as there seems to be no > API to track that in a place.
We may have to invent some new APIs to do that. For example, spin_lock_exit() can be the counterpart of spin_lock_init() and so on. Of course, existing kernel code have to be modified to designate the point after which a lock is no longer being used or is freed.
Cheers, Longman
| |