public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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