[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A1B9C8A@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 00:02:13 +0000
From: "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
CC: "john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] alarmtimer: Replace the spinlock rtcdev_lock with
mutex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oliver Neukum [mailto:oneukum@...e.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:03 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: john.stultz@...aro.org; tglx@...utronix.de; gregkh@...uxfoundation.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] alarmtimer: Replace the spinlock rtcdev_lock with
> mutex
>
> On Thursday 01 November 2012 00:20:55 Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> > When do code reviewing, found no special requirement to
> > use spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore, because
> > alarmtimer_get_rtcdev() is called by posix clock interface.
> > So would like to use mutex to replace it.
>
> What is gained thereby?
spin_lock_irqsave will disable the preempt and local irq, it is expensive than
mutex. Thanks.
>
> Regards
> Oliver
--
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