From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true for UP
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0908181618420.3158@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1250635343-32546-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org>
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> For some reason __raw_spin_is_locked() has been returning false for the
> uni-processor, non-CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK. The UP + CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
> handles this correctly.
>
> Found this by enabling CONFIG_DEBUG_VM on PPC and hitting always hitting
> a BUG_ON that was testing to make sure the pte_lock was held.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
> ---
>
> Linus, a fix for 2.6.31
This really isn't all that clear.
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();
so it's hard to tell whether it should return true or false in the case
where spin-locking simply doesn't exist.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-18 23:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-18 22:42 [PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true for UP Kumar Gala
2009-08-18 23:20 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-08-18 23:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-08-18 23:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-19 0:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-08-19 1:17 ` Kumar Gala
2009-08-19 2:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-19 9:31 ` Olivier Galibert
2009-08-19 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-19 18:50 ` Scott Wood
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=alpine.LFD.2.01.0908181618420.3158@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=galak@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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