[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140603084735.GO11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:47:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: mm,console: circular dependency between console_sem and zone lock
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:55:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Hmm, it failed on a try lock, but on the spinlock within the trylock. I
> wonder if we should add this.
>
> Peter?
>
> -- Steve
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> index 6815171..6579f84 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> @@ -132,7 +132,9 @@ int down_trylock(struct semaphore *sem)
> unsigned long flags;
> int count;
>
> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
> + if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags))
> + return 1;
> +
> count = sem->count - 1;
> if (likely(count >= 0))
> sem->count = count;
I prefer not to, there is no reason the down_trylock() will fail if that
spinlock is contended. We might have just hit the release in progress.
But let me stare at the original problem..
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists