[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150605095552.GA7893@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:55:52 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, ktkhai@...allels.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@...il.com,
pang.xunlei@...aro.org, oleg@...hat.com,
wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] lockdep: Implement lock pinning
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> RFC: a possible alternative API would be something like:
>
> int cookie = lockdep_pin_lock(&foo);
> ...
> lockdep_unpin_lock(&foo, cookie);
Yeah, this would be even nicer.
> Where we pick a random number for the pin_count; this makes it
> impossible to sneak a lock break in without also passing the right
> cookie along.
>
> I've not done this because it ends up generating code for !LOCKDEP,
> esp. if you need to pass the cookie around for some reason.
The cookie could be a zero-size structure, which can be 'passed around'
syntactically but creates no overhead in the code.
But I'd expect cookie-passing to be a sign of badness in most cases: the lock
should generally be unpinned at the same level of abstraction...
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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