Re: [patch] timer/hrtimer: take per cpu locks in sane order

[Ingo Molnar]

* Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> -	spin_lock(&new_base->lock);
> -	spin_lock(&old_base->lock);
> +	/*
> +	 * If we take a lock from a different cpu, make sure we have always
> +	 * the same locking order. That is the lock that belongs to the cpu
> +	 * with the lowest number is taken first.
> +	 */
> +	lock1 = smp_processor_id() < cpu ? &new_base->lock : &old_base->lock;
> +	lock2 = smp_processor_id() < cpu ? &old_base->lock : &new_base->lock;
> +	spin_lock(lock1);
> +	spin_lock(lock2);

looks good to me. Wouldnt this be cleaner via double_lock_timer() - 
similar to how double_rq_lock() works in kernel/sched.c - instead of 
open-coding it?

	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/