On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:16:29PM +0000 David Laight wrote:
> From: Benjamin Segall
> > Sent: 30 October 2020 18:48
> >
> > Hui Su <sh_...@163.com> 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 <bseg...@google.com>
> >
> > (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.
>
Nah, this one used to be like this :
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cfs_b->lock, flags);
lsub_positive(&cfs_b->runtime, runtime);
cfs_b->distribute_running = 0;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cfs_b->lock, flags);
It's just a leftover. I agree that if it was there for some other
purpose that it would really need a comment. In this case, it's an
artifact of patch-based development I think.
Cheers,
Phil
> avid
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1
> 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>
--
