linux-kernel - spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: spinlocks -- why are releases inlined and acquires are not?

Hi,

include/linux/spinlock.h shows:

	#define spin_lock_irq(lock)             _spin_lock_irq(lock)

unconditionally, i.e. irrespectible of config options, we always (on SMP) 
call kernel/spinlock.c:_spin_lock_irq(), which is even not inlined.

Contrary to that, unlocks are written as one would expect, i.e:

	#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || \
        	!defined(CONFIG_SMP)
	# define spin_unlock_irq(lock)          _spin_unlock_irq(lock)
	#else
	# define spin_unlock_irq(lock)                  \
	do {                                            \
        	__raw_spin_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock);   \
	        __release(lock);                        \
	        local_irq_enable();                     \
	} while (0)

and __raw_spin_unlock() is of course properly inlined.

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?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/