[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgg9dUP0hqYfrDmXT7q2T9GiJt9uthKB7wEWNnKkMPisA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 12:15:19 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Radoslaw Burny <rburny@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] locking/mutex: Revive fast functions for CONFIG_LOCK_TRACEPOINTS
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 12:41 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:42:07AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > I'm not entirely sure why it removed the fast versions when lockdep is
> > on. It seems easy to add the required annotation when the fast
> > version is succeeded as far as the tracpoints are concerned.
>
> IIRC it was something like, lockdep depends on MUTEX_DEBUG and that in
> turn relied on not having the fast path enabled. MUTEX_DEBUG used to
> always take the wait_lock to ensure the debug state is consistent with
> the lock state.
I see. Thanks for the explanation!
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists