From: mhornung.linux@gmail.com (mhornung.linux at gmail.com)
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
Subject: drivers: staging: most: Locking question
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 20:14:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160718181446.GA1650@googlemail.com> (raw)
Hello,
I have some questions about the locking techniques used inside
file drivers/staging/most/hdm-usb/hdm_usb.c.
The one and only call to function free_anchored_buffers is locked by a Mutex:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
mutex_lock(&mdev->io_mutex);
free_anchored_buffers(mdev, channel);
if (mdev->padding_active[channel])
mdev->padding_active[channel] = false;
if (mdev->conf[channel].data_type == MOST_CH_ASYNC) {
del_timer_sync(&mdev->link_stat_timer);
cancel_work_sync(&mdev->poll_work_obj);
}
mutex_unlock(&mdev->io_mutex);
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, inside function free_anchored_buffers, they use a (from my point of view)
somewhat complex spinlock variant:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
static void free_anchored_buffers(struct most_dev *mdev, unsigned int channel)
{
struct mbo *mbo;
struct buf_anchor *anchor, *tmp;
unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->anchor_list_lock[channel], flags);
list_for_each_entry_safe(anchor, tmp, &mdev->anchor_list[channel],
list) {
struct urb *urb = anchor->urb;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->anchor_list_lock[channel], flags);
if (likely(urb)) {
mbo = urb->context;
if (!irqs_disabled()) {
usb_kill_urb(urb);
} else {
usb_unlink_urb(urb);
wait_for_completion(&anchor->urb_compl);
}
if ((mbo) && (mbo->complete)) {
mbo->status = MBO_E_CLOSE;
mbo->processed_length = 0;
mbo->complete(mbo);
}
usb_free_urb(urb);
}
spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->anchor_list_lock[channel], flags);
list_del(&anchor->list);
cancel_work_sync(&anchor->clear_work_obj);
kfree(anchor);
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->anchor_list_lock[channel], flags);
}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my questions:
#1: What is the intention of locking a whole function with a Mutex and then
using spinlocks inside the function? Wouldn't it be sufficient to use
one locking technique?
#2: Why is the spinlock not just locking the whole list_for_each_entry part or
just the list_del(&anchor->list)?
Thank you very much in advance.
With best regards
Michael
next reply other threads:[~2016-07-18 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-18 18:14 mhornung.linux at gmail.com [this message]
2016-07-18 20:54 ` drivers: staging: most: Locking question Greg KH
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=20160718181446.GA1650@googlemail.com \
--to=mhornung.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.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 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).