On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:58:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan....@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Use spin_[un]lock instead of arch_spin_[un]lock in mutex-debug.h so
> > that we can collect the lock statistics of spin_lock_mutex from
> > /proc/lock_stat.
> >
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan....@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/mutex-debug.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/mutex-debug.h b/kernel/mutex-debug.h
> > index 0799fd3..556c0bc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/mutex-debug.h
> > +++ b/kernel/mutex-debug.h
> > @@ -43,13 +43,13 @@ static inline void mutex_clear_owner(struct mutex *lock)
> > \
> > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(in_interrupt()); \
> > local_irq_save(flags); \
> > - arch_spin_lock(&(lock)->rlock.raw_lock);\
> > + spin_lock(lock); \
>
> But in that case it could probably use the spin_lock_irqsave()
> primitive, right?
Right, in that case I should use spin_lock_irqsave.
But one question, why we use spin_lock at kernel/mutex.h,
while use 'local_irq_save(); arch_spin_lock' at kernel/mutex-debug.h?
Shouldn't we keep it consistent? Say use spin_lock_irqsave?
Thanks.
--yliu
>
> > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(l->magic != l); \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > #define spin_unlock_mutex(lock, flags) \
> > do { \
> > - arch_spin_unlock(&(lock)->rlock.raw_lock); \
> > + spin_unlock(lock); \
> > local_irq_restore(flags); \
> > preempt_check_resched(); \
>
> And here spin_unlock_irqrestore().
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
