[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:40:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> What is the reason for this asymetry? Shouldn't the acquiring functions
> be implemented in the very same way? Or at least, shouldn't all the
> __lockfunc functions be inlined?
i.e. is there any particular reason why we don't have something like the
patch below (implemented for all the lock variants of course, this is
just to demonstrate what I mean)?
spinlocks: inline spin_lock() in non-debug cases
inline spin_lock() in the non-debug case.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
index 576a5f7..30922ba 100644
--- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
@@ -178,7 +178,12 @@ do { \
#define read_trylock(lock) __cond_lock(lock, _read_trylock(lock))
#define write_trylock(lock) __cond_lock(lock, _write_trylock(lock))
+#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || \
+ !defined(CONFIG_SMP)
#define spin_lock(lock) _spin_lock(lock)
+#else
+#define spin_lock(lock) \
+ do { __raw_spin_lock(&(lock)->raw_lock); __acquire(lock); } while (0)
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
# define spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) _spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hosted by DataForce ISP -
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux