LWN.net Logo

Re: [PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true for UP

From:  Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>
To:  Kumar Gala <galak-AT-kernel.crashing.org>
Subject:  Re: [PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true for UP
Date:  Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:  peterz-AT-infradead.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, rostedt-AT-goodmis.org, linuxppc-dev-AT-ozlabs.org, mingo-AT-elte.hu, tglx-AT-linutronix.de
Archive-link:  Article, Thread



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


(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds