From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:05:11 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow rwlocks to re-enable interrupts Message-Id: <20081022190510.GH26094@parisc-linux.org> List-Id: References: <1224664414.4430.33.camel@elijah.suse.cz> <1224664476.4430.38.camel@elijah.suse.cz> <1224665128.15448.4.camel@twins> <1224665899.4430.48.camel@elijah.suse.cz> <1224696271.20069.8.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1224696271.20069.8.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Petr Tesarik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, tee@sgi.com, Ingo Molnar On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 07:24:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > No problem. I could then also use it for _spin_lock_irqsave, if the > > answer to the above question is use CONFIG_LOCK_STAT there as well. > > If you create LOCK_CONTEDED_FLAGS() the whole issue goes away nicely. Should it also be used for _spin_lock_irq()? I'm puzzled why it's only used for _irqsave(). (should _spin_lock_bh() re-enable BHs while waiting? Is it just not big enough of a deal?) -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."