[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110105192634.GA30361@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:26:34 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] spinlock: Kill spin_unlock_wait()
On 01/05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 17:45 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > So I agree, taking it out the back and shooting it in the head would make
> > the world a better place.
>
> There appear to be only two callsites of said horror,
Not sure I understand why spin_unlock_wait() is really awful, but OK.
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -956,7 +956,8 @@ NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long code)
> * an exiting task cleaning up the robust pi futexes.
> */
> smp_mb();
> - raw_spin_unlock_wait(&tsk->pi_lock);
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&tsk->pi_lock);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->pi_lock);
then you can kill smp_mb() above.
Oleg.
--
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