[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090414065239.GA20951@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:52:39 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Linux-Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: Only take lock when the counter drops to zero on UP as well
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:13:57PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> I think it is wrong to unconditionally take the lock before calling
> atomic_dec_and_test() in _atomic_dec_and_lock(). This will deadlock in
> situation where it is known that the counter will not reach zero (e.g. holding
> another reference to the same object) but the lock is already taken.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
Paul's worry about callers aside, I think it is probably a good idea
to reduce ifdefs and share more code.
So for this patch,
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
> ---
> lib/dec_and_lock.c | 3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/dec_and_lock.c b/lib/dec_and_lock.c
> index a65c314..e73822a 100644
> --- a/lib/dec_and_lock.c
> +++ b/lib/dec_and_lock.c
> @@ -19,11 +19,10 @@
> */
> int _atomic_dec_and_lock(atomic_t *atomic, spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> /* Subtract 1 from counter unless that drops it to 0 (ie. it was 1) */
> if (atomic_add_unless(atomic, -1, 1))
> return 0;
> -#endif
> +
> /* Otherwise do it the slow way */
> spin_lock(lock);
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(atomic))
> --
> 1.6.0.2
--
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