On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 04:52:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Poking at lock internals is not cool. Since I'm going to change the
> > implementation this will break, take it out.
>
>
> So something like the below would serve as a replacement for your
> previous hacks. Is this API something acceptable to people? Ingo,
> Thomas?
>
> ---
> include/linux/mutex.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
> index 4d3bccabbea5..afcff2c85957 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mutex.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
> @@ -189,4 +189,29 @@ extern void mutex_unlock(struct mutex *lock);
>
> extern int atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(atomic_t *cnt, struct mutex *lock);
>
> +enum mutex_trylock_recursive_enum {
> + mutex_trylock_failed = 0,
> + mutex_trylock_success = 1,
> + mutex_trylock_recursive,
Upper case enum symbols please, if at all.
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * mutex_trylock_recursive - trylock variant that allows recursive locking
> + * @lock: mutex to be locked
> + *
> + *
> + * Returns:
> + * mutex_trylock_failed - trylock failed,
> + * mutex_trylock_success - lock acquired,
> + * mutex_trylock_recursive - we already owned the lock.
> + */
> +static inline enum mutex_trylock_recursive_enum
> +mutex_trylock_recursive(struct mutex *lock)
> +{
> + if (unlikely(__mutex_owner(lock) == current))
> + return mutex_trylock_recursive;
> +
> + return mutex_trylock(lock);
> +}
Hmm. I'm not a great fan of this, because that requires an conditional
unlock mechanism.
res = trylock_recursive(lock);
if (res == FAILED)
goto out;
.....
if (res == SUCCESS)
unlock(lock);
While if you actually keep track of recursion you can do:
if (!trylock_recursive(lock))
goto out;
....
unlock_recursive(lock);
or even:
lock_recursive(lock);
unlock_recursive(lock);
That's making lock/trylock and unlock symetric, so its obvious in the
source what's going on and the recursion tracking allows for better
debugability.
Thanks,
tglx
