Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757177Ab3E0I0p (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2013 04:26:45 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:49343 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756974Ab3E0I0n (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2013 04:26:43 -0400 Message-ID: <51A318BF.7010109@canonical.com> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:26:39 +0200 From: Maarten Lankhorst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, robclark@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Dave Airlie Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v3 References: <20130428165914.17075.57751.stgit@patser> <20130428170407.17075.80082.stgit@patser> <20130430191422.GA5763@phenom.ffwll.local> <519CA976.9000109@canonical.com> <20130522161831.GQ18810@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <519CFF56.90600@canonical.com> <20130527080019.GD2781@laptop> In-Reply-To: <20130527080019.GD2781@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1645 Lines: 31 Op 27-05-13 10:00, Peter Zijlstra schreef: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:24:38PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>> +- Functions to only acquire a single w/w mutex, which results in the exact same >>>> + semantics as a normal mutex. These functions have the _single postfix. >>> This is missing rationale. >> trylock_single is useful when iterating over a list, and you want to evict a bo, but only the first one that can be acquired. >> lock_single is useful when only a single bo needs to be acquired, for example to lock a buffer during mmap. > OK, so given that its still early, monday and I haven't actually spend > much time thinking on this; would it be possible to make: > ww_mutex_lock(.ctx=NULL) act like ww_mutex_lock_single()? > > The idea is that if we don't provide a ctx, we'll get a different > lockdep annotation; mutex_lock() vs mutex_lock_nest_lock(). So if we > then go and make a mistake, lockdep should warn us. > > Would that work or should I stock up on morning juice? > It's easy to merge unlock_single and unlock, which I did in the next version I'll post. Lockdep will already warn if ww_mutex_lock and ww_mutex_lock_single are both used. ww_test_block_context and ww_test_context_block in lib/locking-selftest.c are the testcases for this. The locking paths are too different, it will end up with doing "if (ctx == NULL) mutex_lock(); else ww_mutex_lock();" ~Maarten -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/