Re: recursive spinlocks. Shoot.

From: Jan Hudec (bulb@ucw.cz)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 01:19:39 EST


On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 07:24:17PM +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> "A month of sundays ago William Lee Irwin III wrote:"
> > At some point in the past, Peter Breuer's attribution was removed from:
> > >> Here's a before-breakfast implementation of a recursive spinlock. That
> > >> is, the same thread can "take" the spinlock repeatedly.
> >
> > On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 09:30:17AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > > Why?
> >
> > netconsole.
>
> That's a problem looking for a solution! No, the reason for wanting a
> recursive spinlock is that nonrecursive locks make programming harder.
>
> Though I've got quite good at finding and removing deadlocks in my old
> age, there are still two popular ways that the rest of the world's
> prgrammers often shoot themselves in the foot with a spinlock:
>
> a) sleeping while holding the spinlock
> b) taking the spinlock in a subroutine while you already have it
>
> The first method leads to an early death if the spinlock is a popular
> one, as the only thread that can release it doesn't seem to be running,
> errr..
>
> The second method is used by programmers who aren't aware that some
> obscure subroutine takes a spinlock, and who recklessly take a lock
> before calling a subroutine (the very thought sends shivers down my
> spine ...). A popular scenario involves not /knowing/ that your routine
> is called by the kernel with some obscure lock already held, and then
> calling a subroutine that calls the same obscure lock. The request
> function is one example, but that's hardly obscure (and in 2.5 the
> situation has eased there!).
>
> It's the case (b) that a recursive spinlock makes go away.

It thought we still have the spinlock debuging level 2 which DOES CHECK
THIS (seems noone knows about it - I had to fix a trivial error when
I used it in user-mode arch, but it worked well then). [check means it
gives backtrace]

> Hey, that's not bad for a small change! 50% of potential programming
> errors sent to the dustbin without ever being encountered.

They are errors. Appropriate response to errors is an OOPS.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>
-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:32 EST