lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] IB/hfi1: Use preempt_{dis,en}able_nort()
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:55:39AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:37:59 -0500
> Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:27:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Julia Cartwright wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 12:49:19PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > > - preempt_disable();
> > > > > + preempt_disable_nort();
> > > > > this_cpu_inc(*sc->buffers_allocated);
> > > >
> > > > Have you tried this on RT w/ CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT? I believe that the
> > > > this_cpu_* operations perform a preemption check, which we'd trip.
> > >
> > > Good point. Changing this to migrate_disable() would do the trick.
> >
> > Wouldn't we still trip the preempt check even with migration disabled?
> > In another thread I asked the same question: should the preemption
> > checks here be converted to migration-checks in RT?
>
> Is it a "preemption check"?

Sorry if I was unclear, more precisely: the this_cpu_* family of
accessors, w/ CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT currently spits out a warning when
the caller is invoked in a context where preemption is enabled.

The check is shared w/ the smp_processor_id() check, as implemented in
lib/smp_processor_id.c. It effectively boils down to a check of
preempt_count() and irqs_disabled().

> Getting a cpu # should only care about migration.

I think we're agreeing? :)

> This isn't the same as a rcu_sched check is it? That does care about
> preemption.

This is something totally different, I think.

Julia

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-05 18:07    [W:0.063 / U:9.588 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site