* Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:22:45 +0800
> 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.
So, as per the discussion we don't want this patch, because we
are using raw locks there to keep mutex lockdep overhead low.
The value of lockdep-checking such a basic locking primitive is
minimal - it's rarely tweaked and if it breaks we won't have a
bootable kernel to begin with.
So instead I suggested a different patch: adding a comment to
explain why we don't lockdep-cover the mutex code spinlocks.
> Also, I believe your patch permits this cleanup:
>
> --- a/kernel/mutex-debug.h~mutex-use-spin_lock-instead-of-arch_spin_lock-fix
> +++ a/kernel/mutex-debug.h
> @@ -42,14 +42,12 @@ static inline void mutex_clear_owner(str
> struct mutex *l = container_of(lock, struct mutex, wait_lock); \
> \
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(in_interrupt()); \
> - local_irq_save(flags); \
> - spin_lock(lock); \
> + spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags); \
Yes, I mentioned that yesterday, but we really don't want the
change to begin with.
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/
