[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B7441@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:40:08 -0000
From: "David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: "Nicholas Mc Guire" <der.herr@...r.at>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
<roque@...fc.ul.pt>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] rebalance locks by converting write_lock_bh towrite_lock+local_bh_disable
> in one of the cases I do not understand the intent behind the split:
> in net/core/sock.c:lock_sock_fast
>
> spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
> ...
> spin_unlock(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
> /*
> * The sk_lock has mutex_lock() semantics here:
> */
> mutex_acquire(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> local_bh_enable();
>
> I think that
>
> spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
> ...
> /*
> * The sk_lock has mutex_lock() semantics here:
> */
> mutex_acquire(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> spin_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
>
> should be equivalent ?
You've added a lock ordering that wasn't there before.
Also I suspect that mutex_acquire() might be allowed to sleep,
whereas you shouldn't sleep with a spin lock held.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists