Re: [patch 50/61] lock validator: special locking: hrtimer.c

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Fri Jun 23 2006 - 06:08:08 EST



* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > for (i = 0; i < MAX_HRTIMER_BASES; i++, base++)
> > - spin_lock_init(&base->lock);
> > + spin_lock_init_static(&base->lock);
> > }
> >
>
> Perhaps the validator core's implementation of spin_lock_init() could
> look at the address and work out if it's within the static storage
> sections.

yeah, but there are two cases: places where we want to 'unify' array
locks into a single type, and places where we want to treat them
separately. The case where we 'unify' is the more common one: locks
embedded into hash-tables for example. So i went for annotating the ones
that are rarer. There are 2 right now: scheduler, hrtimers, with the
hrtimers one going away in the high-res-timers implementation. (we
unified the hrtimers locks into a per-CPU lock) (there's also a kgdb
annotation for -mm)

perhaps the naming should be clearer? I had it named
spin_lock_init_standalone() originally, then cleaned it up to be
spin_lock_init_static(). Maybe the original name is better?

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/