From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756083Ab3FTIiK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:38:10 -0400
Received: from intranet.asianux.com ([58.214.24.6]:22586 "EHLO
	intranet.asianux.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755028Ab3FTIiH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:38:07 -0400
X-Spam-Score: -100.8
Message-ID: <51C2BF3C.8020804@asianux.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:37:16 +0800
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/timer.c: using spin_lock_irqsave instead of spin_lock
 + local_irq_save, especially when CONFIG_LOCKDEP not defined
References: <51C11E83.8030902@asianux.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306191029530.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de> <51C17D01.2060208@asianux.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306191151390.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de> <51C1861A.6030901@asianux.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306191249260.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306191249260.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 06/19/2013 06:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
> 
>> > On 06/19/2013 05:59 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> > > I'm well aware how that works. And there is no difference whether you
>>> > > do:
>>> > > 
>>> > > 	local_irq_save(flags);
>>> > > 	spin_lock(&lock);
>>> > > or
>>> > > 	spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
>> > 
>> > if CONFIG_LOCKDEP is not defined, they are not semantically the same.
> Care to explain _your_ spinlock semantics to me?
> 
> The factual ones are:
> 
>     spin_lock_irqsave() returns with the lock held, interrupts and
>     preemption disabled. 
> 

Yes.

>     spin_lock() returns with the lock held, preemption disabled. It
>     does not affect interrupt disabled/enabled state
> 

Yes.

> So
> 	local_irq_save(flags);
> 	spin_lock(&lock);
> 
> is semantically the same as 
> 
> 	spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);
> 

Yes (but reverse is NO).

> And this is completely independent of LOCKDEP.

NO.

 	spin_lock_irqsave(&lock, flags);

 is not semantically the same as

 	local_irq_save(flags);
 	spin_lock(&lock);

It depend on the spin_lock_irqsave() implementation, if the parameters
has no relation ship with each other, semantically the same.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Asianux Corporation