[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306191249260.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:53:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/timer.c: using spin_lock_irqsave instead of
spin_lock + local_irq_save, especially when CONFIG_LOCKDEP not defined
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 05:59 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I'm well aware how that works. And there is no difference whether you
> > do:
> >
> > local_irq_save(flags);
> > spin_lock(&lock);
> > or
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
>
> if CONFIG_LOCKDEP is not defined, they are not semantically the same.
Care to explain _your_ spinlock semantics to me?
The factual ones are:
spin_lock_irqsave() returns with the lock held, interrupts and
preemption disabled.
spin_lock() returns with the lock held, preemption disabled. It
does not affect interrupt disabled/enabled state
So
local_irq_save(flags);
spin_lock(&lock);
is semantically the same as
spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
And this is completely independent of LOCKDEP.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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