[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1359075809.21576.182.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:03:29 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: use spin_[un]lock instead of
arch_spin_[un]lock
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Actually this perhaps hurts lockdep. We want to keep the
> > arch_spin_(un)lock() versions because each spin_lock() and spin_unlock()
> > needs to be verified by lockdep. Lockdep also verifies mutex locks. But
> > with this change, for every mutex, it's going to also analyze a
> > spin_lock and spin_unlock twice each (one for mutex lock and one for
> > unlock). As this is just locking the mutex internals, it may not be
> > necessary to debug it via lockdep. Hence we probably want to keep the
> > arch_* version.
>
> In what way is this actually a problem? lockdep will have more work to
> do (and given the frequency of mutex_lock/unlock, that overhead may be
> significant). Anything else?
Ingo probably can answer this better than I can. I'll let him do it when
he wakes up tomorrow.
-- Steve
--
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