From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com>
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
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:41:21 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306191029530.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51C11E83.8030902@asianux.com>
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
>
> When CONFIG_LOCKDEP is not defined, spin_lock_irqsave() is not equal to
> spin_lock() + local_irq_save().
>
> In __mod_timer(), After call spin_lock_irqsave() with 'base->lock' in
> lock_timer_base(), it may use spin_lock() with the 'new_base->lock'.
>
> It may let original call do_raw_spin_lock_flags() with 'base->lock',
> but new call LOCK_CONTENDED() with 'new_base->lock'.
>
> In fact, we need both of them call do_raw_spin_lock_flags(), so use
> spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() + local_irq_save().
Why do we need to do that? There is no reason to do so and it's
totally irrelevant whether CONFIG_LOCKDEP is enabled or not.
The code is written intentionally this way.
What's the difference between:
spin_lock_irqsave(&l1, flags);
spin_unlock(&l1);
spin_lock(l2);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&l2, flags);
and
spin_lock_irqsave(&l1, flags);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&l1);
spin_lock_irqsave(l2, flags);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&l2, flags);
The difference is that we avoid to touch the interrupt disable in the
cpu, which might be an expensive operation depending on the cpu model.
There is no point in reenabling interrupts just to disable them
again a few instruction cycles later.
And lockdep is perfectly fine with that code. All lockdep cares about
is whether the lock context (interrupts disabled) is correct or
not.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-19 8:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-19 2:59 [PATCH] kernel/timer.c: using spin_lock_irqsave instead of spin_lock + local_irq_save, especially when CONFIG_LOCKDEP not defined Chen Gang
2013-06-19 8:41 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2013-06-19 9:42 ` Chen Gang
2013-06-19 9:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-19 10:07 ` Chen Gang
2013-06-19 10:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20 4:14 ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20 7:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20 8:42 ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20 9:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20 10:31 ` Chen Gang
2013-06-19 10:21 ` Chen Gang
2013-06-19 10:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20 8:37 ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20 9:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20 9:53 ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20 10:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20 10:59 ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20 9:12 ` Eric Dumazet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.02.1306191029530.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=gang.chen@asianux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.