public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/timer.c: using spin_lock_irqsave instead of spin_lock + local_irq_save, especially when CONFIG_LOCKDEP not defined
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:42:25 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51C17D01.2060208@asianux.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306191029530.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>

On 06/19/2013 04:41 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
> 
>> > 
>> > When CONFIG_LOCKDEP is not defined, spin_lock_irqsave() is not equal to
>> > spin_lock() + local_irq_save().
>> > 
>> > In __mod_timer(), After call spin_lock_irqsave() with 'base->lock' in
>> > lock_timer_base(), it may use spin_lock() with the 'new_base->lock'.
>> > 
>> > It may let original call do_raw_spin_lock_flags() with 'base->lock',
>> > but new  call LOCK_CONTENDED() with 'new_base->lock'.
>> > 
>> > In fact, we need both of them call do_raw_spin_lock_flags(), so use
>> > spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() + local_irq_save().
> Why do we need to do that? There is no reason to do so and it's
> totally irrelevant whether CONFIG_LOCKDEP is enabled or not.
>

Please see include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h (or see bottom of this mail)

 
> The code is written intentionally this way.
> 
> What's the difference between:
> 
>        spin_lock_irqsave(&l1, flags);
>        spin_unlock(&l1);
>        spin_lock(l2);
>        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&l2, flags);
> 
> and
> 
>        spin_lock_irqsave(&l1, flags);
>        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&l1);
>        spin_lock_irqsave(l2, flags);
>        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&l2, flags);
> 

Yes


> The difference is that we avoid to touch the interrupt disable in the
> cpu, which might be an expensive operation depending on the cpu model.
> 
> There is no point in reenabling interrupts just to disable them
> again a few instruction cycles later.
> 
> And lockdep is perfectly fine with that code. All lockdep cares about
> is whether the lock context (interrupts disabled) is correct or
> not.

Please reference include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h and include/linux/spinlock.h

  spin_lock_irqsave() ->
    raw_spin_lock_irqsave() ->
      _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() ->
        __raw_spin_lock_irqsave()

  spin_lock() ->
    raw_spin_lock() ->
      _raw_spin_lock() ->
        __raw_spin_lock()


104 static inline unsigned long __raw_spin_lock_irqsave(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
105 {
106         unsigned long flags;
107 
108         local_irq_save(flags);
109         preempt_disable();
110         spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
111         /*
112          * On lockdep we dont want the hand-coded irq-enable of
113          * do_raw_spin_lock_flags() code, because lockdep assumes
114          * that interrupts are not re-enabled during lock-acquire:
115          */
116 #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
117         LOCK_CONTENDED(lock, do_raw_spin_trylock, do_raw_spin_lock);
118 #else
119         do_raw_spin_lock_flags(lock, &flags);
120 #endif
121         return flags;
122 }
...

140 static inline void __raw_spin_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
141 {
142         preempt_disable();
143         spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
144         LOCK_CONTENDED(lock, do_raw_spin_trylock, do_raw_spin_lock);
145 }



Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Asianux Corporation

  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-19  9:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-19  2:59 [PATCH] kernel/timer.c: using spin_lock_irqsave instead of spin_lock + local_irq_save, especially when CONFIG_LOCKDEP not defined Chen Gang
2013-06-19  8:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-19  9:42   ` Chen Gang [this message]
2013-06-19  9:59     ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-19 10:07       ` Chen Gang
2013-06-19 10:49         ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20  4:14           ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20  7:36             ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20  8:42               ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20  9:02                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20 10:31                   ` Chen Gang
2013-06-19 10:21       ` Chen Gang
2013-06-19 10:53         ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20  8:37           ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20  9:07             ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20  9:53               ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20 10:42                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20 10:59                   ` Chen Gang
2013-06-20  9:12             ` Eric Dumazet

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=51C17D01.2060208@asianux.com \
    --to=gang.chen@asianux.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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