[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307569758.2497.1012.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:49:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
efault@....de, npiggin@...nel.dk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
frank.rowand@...sony.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [debug patch] printk: Add a printk killswitch to robustify NMI
watchdog messages
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 22:52 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Hm, i thought it would be possible to only express it via the
> slowpath: if mutex_trylock() succeeds then *all* execution goes into
> the slowpath so we don't have to take all the fastpaths into account.
Right, but you first have to take wait_lock, then do the trylock, but
that's complicated for asm/mutex-null.h because trylock will then also
try to obtain the wait_lock.
You can do it by creating ___mutex_trylock_slowpath() which contains the
meat of __mutex_trylock_slowpath() and then implement
atomic_mutex_trylock{_irq,_irqsave,} using that, not releasing wait_lock
on success.
Shouldn't be too bad, but it ain't too pretty either.
Furthermore, like I said in my initial patch, I share Thomas' worry
about 'creative' usage of these primitives.
--
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