[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160217092828.GA19001@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:28:29 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lock/semaphore: Avoid an unnecessary deadlock within
up()
* Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> index b8120ab..6634b68 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> @@ -130,13 +130,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_killable);
> int down_trylock(struct semaphore *sem)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - int count;
> + int count = -1;
>
> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
> - count = sem->count - 1;
> - if (likely(count >= 0))
> - sem->count = count;
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
> + if (raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)) {
> + count = sem->count - 1;
> + if (likely(count >= 0))
> + sem->count = count;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
> + }
I still don't really like it: two parallel trylocks will cause one of them to fail
- while with the previous code they would both succeed.
None of these changes are necessary with all the printk robustification
changes/enhancements we talked about, right?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists