From: Benjamin Segall
> Sent: 30 October 2020 18:48
>
> Hui Su <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Since 'ab93a4bc955b ("sched/fair: Remove
> > distribute_running fromCFS bandwidth")',there is
> > nothing to protect between raw_spin_lock_irqsave/store()
> > in do_sched_cfs_slack_timer().
> >
> > So remove it.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ben Segall <[email protected]>
>
> (I might nitpick the subject to be clear that it should be trivial
> because the lock area is empty, or call them dead or something, but it's
> not all that important)
I don't know about this case, but a lock+unlock can be used
to ensure that nothing else holds the lock when acquiring
the lock requires another lock be held.
So if the normal sequence is:
lock(table)
# lookup item
lock(item)
unlock(table)
....
unlock(item)
Then it can make sense to do:
lock(table)
lock(item)
unlock(item)
....
unlock(table)
although that ought to deserve a comment.
avid
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT,
UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
