[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131125103751.GC23813@opentech.at>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:37:51 +0100
From: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013, David Laight wrote:
> > 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.
>
mutex_acquire is not a lock but a lockdep entry.
As far as I understand it it nither can sleep nor is there a change of
order here. Am I missing something ?
thx!
hofrat
--
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