From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au, tony.luck@intel.com,
dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
wli@holomorphy.com, jbarnes@sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:05:33 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0501200752280.8178@ppc970.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050120031854.GA8538@taniwha.stupidest.org>
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:01:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > ... how about we simply nuke this statement:
> >
> > Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > if (!spin_is_locked(&p->sighand->siglock) &&
> > > - !rwlock_is_locked(&tasklist_lock))
> > > + !rwlock_write_locked(&tasklist_lock))
> >
> > and be done with the whole thing?
>
> I'm all for killing that. I'll happily send a patch once the dust
> settles.
How about I just kill it now, so that it just doesn't exist, and the dust
(from all the other things) can settle where it will?
In fact, I think I will remove the whole "rwlock_is_locked()" thing and
the only user, since it's all clearly broken, and regardless of what we do
it will be something else. That will at least fix the current problem, and
only leave us doing too many bus accesses when BKL_PREEMPT is enabled.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-20 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 5:50 Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:09 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-17 7:33 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:50 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-17 8:00 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-20 2:34 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:08 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` [patch] stricter type-checking rwlock " Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` [patch] minor spinlock cleanups Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:31 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` [patch, BK-curr] rename 'lock' to 'slock' in asm-i386/spinlock.h Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 23:45 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:44 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2005-01-20 16:20 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Grant Grundler
2005-01-17 7:38 ` [PATCH] __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id() not smp_processor_id() Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-17 18:53 ` Chris Wedgwood
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=Pine.LNX.4.58.0501200752280.8178@ppc970.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jbarnes@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).