Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:17:54 -0700 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mutex.h Message-ID: <200310141417.54617.sam@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20031014170830.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <XFMail.20031014170830.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 14 October 2003 02:08 pm, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 14-Oct-2003 Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> On 12-Oct-2003 Jeff Roberson wrote:
> >> > jeff 2003/10/12 14:02:55 PDT
> >> >
> >> > FreeBSD src repository
> >> >
> >> > Modified files:
> >> > sys/sys mutex.h
> >> > Log:
> >> > - Implement a mtx_ownedby() macro which can be used to determine if
> >> > a particular thread owns a mutex. This cannot be done without races
> >> > unless the thread is curthread.
> >>
> >> This is a very bad idea. What use do you have for this that is not
> >> already handled by mtx_owned() or a mutex assertion?
> >
> > I know it is racy in most contexts. I use it to check to see if a thread
> > on the runq owns giant. Since I have the sched lock it isn't racy but
> > even if it was it wouldn't matter in this case.
>
> sched lock doesn't keep it from being racy. Uncontested acquire and
> releases don't go anywhere near sched lock. Are you checking a
> non-curthread thread pointer? Maybe you could just do it for curthread
> and that would be enough for your heuristic, i.e.
>
> if (thread == curthread && mtx_owned(&Giant)) {
> ...
> }
>
> I'm just worried that if this is there someone is going to use it. :(
Putting this in mutex.h will entice people to use it. Seems it should go
away.
Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200310141417.54617.sam>