Hi... On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 19:46, Leon Woestenberg <leon.woestenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Michael Blizek > <michi1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Why not do this, i.e. acquire the locks in the other order, then > release the global lock first: > > mutex_lock(small_lock); > mutex_lock(&global_lock); > do_something_small_which_requires_both_locks(); > mutex_unlock(&global_lock); > do_something_big_which_requires_only_small_lock(); > mutex_unlock(small_lock); I second this idea...but Michael said the order of lock grab can not be changed... thus I wonder, why? and also, is it possible to use more fine grained lock...which is specific to both task, thus decreasing "lock grab interval"? -- regards, Mulyadi Santosa Freelance Linux trainer and consultant blog: the-hydra.blogspot.com training: mulyaditraining.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
