[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <474DF207.2090705@o2.pl>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:56:07 +0100
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
CC: Larry Finger <larry.finger@...inger.net>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 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@...inger.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@...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