[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070304232443.GP16722@waste.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:24:43 -0600
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <cborntra@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] timer/hrtimer: take per cpu locks in sane order
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> /*
> + * Locks two spinlocks l1 and l2.
> + * l1_first indicates if spinlock l1 should be taken first.
> + */
> +static inline void double_spin_lock(spinlock_t *l1, spinlock_t *l2,
> + bool l1_first)
> + __acquires(l1)
> + __acquires(l2)
> +{
> + if (l1_first) {
> + spin_lock(l1);
> + spin_lock(l2);
> + } else {
> + spin_lock(l2);
> + spin_lock(l1);
> + }
> +}
Two observations:
- We probably don't want people using this for locks that aren't
explicitly in the same level of the hierarchy. The name should
somehow indicate that. Something like spin_lock_siblings()?
- And once we know that, we can internally impose a natural stable
ordering on them based on their addresses, eliminating the third
argument and the need to duplicate the ordering calculation.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists