From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
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 17:20:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050120162040.GA14002@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0501200752280.8178@ppc970.osdl.org>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> 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.
in the 5-patch stream i just sent there's no need to touch exit.c, and
the debugging check didnt hurt. But if you remove it from spinlock.h now
then i'll probably have to regenerate the 5 patches again :-| We can:
- nuke it afterwards
- or can leave it alone as-is (it did catch a couple of bugs in the past)
- or can change the rwlock_is_locked() to !write_can_lock() and remove
rwlock_is_locked() [!write_can_lock() is a perfect replacement for
it].
i'd prefer #3.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-20 16:24 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 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=20050120162040.GA14002@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--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=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--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