* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

quoted text
> >          for (;;) {
> >                  for (i = 0; i < loops; i++) {
> >                          if (__raw_write_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
> >                                  return;
> >                          __delay(1);
> >                  }
> 
> What a piece of crap. 
> 
> Anybody who ever waits for a lock by busy-looping over it is BUGGY, 
> dammit!
> 
> The only correct way to wait for a lock is:
> 
>   (a) try it *once* with an atomic r-m-w 
>   (b) loop over just _reading_ it (and something that implies a memory 
>       barrier, _not_ "__delay()". Use "cpu_relax()" or "smp_rmb()")
>   (c) rinse and repeat.

damn, i first wrote up an explanation about why that ugly __delay(1) is 
there (it almost hurts my eyes when i look at it!) but then deleted it 
as superfluous :-/

really, it's not because i'm stupid (although i might still be stupid 
for other resons ;-), it wasnt there in earlier spin-debug versions. We 
even had an inner spin_is_locked() loop at a stage (and should add it 
again).

the reason for the __delay(1) was really mundane: to be able to figure 
out when to print a 'we locked up' message to the user. If it's 1 
second, it causes false positive on some systems. If it's 10 minutes, 
people press reset before we print out any useful data. It used to be 
just a loop of rep_nop()s, but that was hard to calibrate: on certain 
newer hardware it was triggering as fast as in 2 seconds, causing many 
false positives. We cannot use jiffies nor any other clocksource in this 
debug code.

so i settled for the butt-ugly but working __delay(1) thing, to be able 
to time the debug messages.

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