[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150326160325.GA21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:03:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lglock: Use spinlock_t instead of arch_spinlock_t
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:02:08PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> @@ -67,9 +67,9 @@ void lg_global_lock(struct lglock *lg)
> preempt_disable();
> lock_acquire_exclusive(&lg->lock_dep_map, 0, 0, NULL, _RET_IP_);
> for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> - arch_spinlock_t *lock;
> + spinlock_t *lock;
> lock = per_cpu_ptr(lg->lock, i);
> - arch_spin_lock(lock);
> + spin_lock(lock);
> }
> }
Nope, that'll blow up in two separate places.
One: lockdep, it can only track a limited number of held locks, and it
will further report a recursion warning on the 2nd cpu.
Second: preempt_count_add(), spin_lock() does preempt_disable(), with
enough CPUs you'll overflow the preempt counter (255).
--
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