[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150313200204.GB16977@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:02:04 -0500
From: Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>
To: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
jhugo@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lock 7 is cpuidle specific, use non-generic value for
locking
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:16:00PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
<snip>
> >It looks like the remote side unlocks it too? It doesn't seem like this
> >will work with the framework very well. The framework has a kernel
> >spinlock attached to the hwspinlock so when we lock the hwspinlock we
> >also lock the kernel spinlock and we only release the kernel spinlock
> >when the kernel unlocks the hwspinlock. In this case it seems like
> >cpuidle wants to have it's own kernel spinlock and just use the trylock
> >loop part of __hwspin_lock_timeout() without taking any kernel side
> >locks. Plus it wants to write a specific value to the lock.
> >
> Right.
> Just noticed that part of the hwspinlock. Yes SCM unlocks the
> hwspinlock. So I cannot hold any lock in Linux. May need changes in the
> hwspinlock framework. Seems like an additional flag in hwspinlock to not
> lock any in the trylock path work work. Hmm....
Or a specific EXPORT function for this one usecase which is unlike anyone elses
usage.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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