[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YusV8cr382PeBNLM@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 01:42:25 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 3 - dcache
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 04:42:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:24 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 06:59:36PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > preempt_disable_inlock() ?
> >
> > preempt_disable_locked()?
>
> Heh. Shed painting in full glory.
>
> Let's try just "preempt_enable_under_spinlock()" and see.
>
> It's a bit long, but it's still shorter than the existing usage pattern.
>
> And we don't have "inlock" anywhere else, and while "locked" is a real
> pattern we have, it tends to be about other things (ie "I hold the
> lock that you need, so don't take it").
>
> And this is _explicitly_ only about spinning locks, because sleeping
> locks don't do the preemption disable even without RT.
>
> So let's make it verbose and clear and unambiguous. It's not like I
> expect to see a _lot_ of those. Knock wood.
Should we have it take a spinlock_t pointer? We could have lockdep
check it is actually held.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists