[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160203074223.GB30520@swordfish>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:42:23 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, willy@...ux.intel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akinobu.mita@...il.com, jack@...e.cz,
sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, peter@...leysoftware.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within
up()
On (02/03/16 08:28), Ingo Molnar wrote:
[..]
> So why not move printk away from semaphores? Semaphores are classical constructs
> that have legacies and are somewhat non-obvious to use, compared to modern,
> simpler locking primitives. I'd not touch their implementation, unless we are
> absolutely sure this is a safe optimization.
semaphore's spin_lock is not the only spin lock that printk acquires. it also takes the
logbuf_lock (and different locks in console drivers (up to console driver)).
Jan Kara posted a patch that offloads printing job (console_trylock()-console_unlock())
from printk() call (when printk can offload it). so semaphore and console driver's locks
will go away (mostly) with Jan's patch. logbug spin_lock, however, will stay.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists