[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Uv_PLC5-OBJ1Dw5+z7DeWipqfyE=66hrnnoJSRLdVQVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 21:01:09 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: dw_wdt: Use a mutex, not a spinlock
Hi,
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 03:09 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Right now the dw_wdt uses a spinlock to protect dw_wdt_open(). The
>> problem is that while holding the spinlock we call:
>> -> dw_wdt_set_top()
>> -> dw_wdt_top_in_seconds()
>> -> clk_get_rate()
>> -> clk_prepare_lock()
>> -> mutex_lock()
>>
>> Locking a mutex while holding a spinlock is not allowed and leads to
>> warnings like "BUG: spinlock wrong CPU on CPU#1", among other
>> problems.
>>
>> There's no reason to use a spinlock, so switch to a mutex.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
As Dmitry pointed out in another context, and even better fix is to
just remove the spinlock altogether. I'll send up v2...
-Doug
--
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