linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: use spin_[un]lock instead of arch_spin

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

Message-ID: <20130124102747.GF12678@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:27:47 +0800
From:	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: use spin_[un]lock instead of
 arch_spin_[un]lock

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:14:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:58:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Use spin_[un]lock instead of arch_spin_[un]lock in mutex-debug.h so
> > > > that we can collect the lock statistics of spin_lock_mutex from
> > > > /proc/lock_stat.
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/mutex-debug.h |    4 ++--
> > > >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/mutex-debug.h b/kernel/mutex-debug.h
> > > > index 0799fd3..556c0bc 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/mutex-debug.h
> > > > +++ b/kernel/mutex-debug.h
> > > > @@ -43,13 +43,13 @@ static inline void mutex_clear_owner(struct mutex *lock)
> > > >  							\
> > > >  		DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(in_interrupt());	\
> > > >  		local_irq_save(flags);			\
> > > > -		arch_spin_lock(&(lock)->rlock.raw_lock);\
> > > > +		spin_lock(lock);			\
> > > 
> > > But in that case it could probably use the spin_lock_irqsave() 
> > > primitive, right?
> > 
> > Right, in that case I should use spin_lock_irqsave.
> > 
> > But one question, why we use spin_lock at kernel/mutex.h, 
> > while use 'local_irq_save(); arch_spin_lock' at 
> > kernel/mutex-debug.h?
> > 
> > Shouldn't we keep it consistent? Say use spin_lock_irqsave?
> 
> I think we did it to increase performance with lockdep enabled - 
> this particular lockdep annotation, given the short codepaths, 
> is not that hard to verify - and if it breaks it will break a 
> thousand mutex locking places in the kernel.

Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> So maybe it's better to leave it alone - maybe add a comment 
> that explains the reason.

Sorry, I may not get your point clearly. Should I make another patch to
convert 'local_irq_save(..); arch_spin_lock(..);' at kernel/mutex-debug.h
to spin_lock_irqsave() then?

Thanks.

	--yliu
--
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/