From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
Cc: Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
Subject: Re: initialize a mutex into locked state?
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:59:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160617145954.GW30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17E58758-CA23-420D-89B4-50E71F8A6428@linuxhacker.ru>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:40:14AM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> >> The problem is:
> >>
> >> spin_lock(somelock);
> >> structure = some_internal_list_lookup(list);
> >> if (structure)
> >> goto out;
> >>
> >> init_new_structure(new_structure);
> >> mutex_init(&new_structure->s_mutex);
> >> mutex_lock(&new_structure->s_mutex); // XXX CANNOT DO THIS UNDER SPINLOCK!
> >
> > mutex_trylock(&new_structure->s_mutex);
> >
> > should work, since you know it cannot be acquired yet by anybody else,
> > since you've not published it yet.
>
> This does work, but suddenly does not look so obvious anymore, does it?
Well, the whole thing is somewhat tricky and would require a comment
anyway.
> I got some feedback that doing this is not really preferred.
Much preferred to adding additional API I would think. Because if we add
it here, we'll also have to add it to rt_mutex.
Also, I'm not sure I want to promote this construct, it seems like a
very special case.
> Also once __must_check is added to mutex_try_lock() (surprised it's not yet),
> we'll need to also have the useless "but what if it did fail to lock" path?
The BUG_ON() suggested by Jeff seems like a good solution ;-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-17 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-15 18:23 Oleg Drokin
2016-06-17 8:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-17 14:14 ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-17 14:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-17 14:24 ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-17 14:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-17 14:40 ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-17 14:42 ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-17 14:54 ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-17 14:59 ` Arjan van de Ven
2016-06-17 14:59 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
[not found] ` <CAC0gvwFhyahkP9M7Ktfd0GOv8CJbkeVegSfc57XpEUk8qAGA1w@mail.gmail.com>
2016-06-17 14:46 ` Oleg Drokin
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=20160617145954.GW30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=green@linuxhacker.ru \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®