From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20942B7B7C for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:53:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.linux-foundation.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99003DDD0B for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:53:18 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:52:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true for UP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1250635343-32546-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > The thing is, some people may assert that a lock is held, but others could > > easily be looping until it's not held using something like > > > > while (spin_is_locked(lock)) > > cpu_relax(); > > Wouldn't something like that be really racey? And anyone doing such a > thing had better have that code within an #ifdef CONFIG_SMP. Sure, it's hopefully inside a #ifdef CONFIG_SMP. And no, it's not necessarily racy. Sure, it's race in itself if that's all you are doing, but I could imagine writing that kind of code if I knew some lock was likely held, and I wanted to avoid doing a "try_lock()" until it got released. The point is, "spin_is_locked()" is simply not a well-defined operation in this case. It could go either way. And for the original case, we actually have a function for that: assert_spin_locked(x) which goes away on UP. Exactly because BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(x)) is not a good thing to do! > > so it's hard to tell whether it should return true or false in the case > > where spin-locking simply doesn't exist. > > Actually, I did have a case where I would use it and would expect a return > of 0. That was in the experimental printk code to see if it was safe to > wakeup the klogd. I once had a check of the current cpu runqueue lock is > locked, and if it was, not to wake up klogd. I'm sure there's other cases > like this as well. Yeah, "spin_is_locked()" can be useful for those kinds of things. A heuristic for whether we should do something based on whether some other CPU holds it (or we migth have recursion). Exactly like it can be useful for doing the BUG_ON thing. But in both cases it's a bit iffy. > Thinking about it, UP probably should have spin_is_locked always return > false, but if you want to make sure you are not in a critical section > with the lock not held, then use assert_spin_locked, which on UP should be > a nop. That's what we do. That said, I also think we should generally try to avoid the kind of code that depends on spin_is_locked always returning false, for the same reason we should try to avoid any code that depends on it always returning true. Linus