lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Raw spinlocks and memory allocation
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 03:30:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 02:29:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:24:57 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The reason for this restriction is that in -rt, the spin_lock(&zone->lock)
> > > in rmqueue_bulk() can sleep.
> >
> > So if there is runtime overhead, this overhead could be restricted to
> > -rt kernels with suitable ifdefs?
>
> In theory, yes. In practice, with CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y,
> lockdep will complain regardless of -rt or not.

On non-RT, we could make that lock a raw spinlock. On RT, we could
decline to take the lock. We'd need to abstract the spin_lock() away
behind zone_lock(zone), but that should be OK.

But let's see if we need to do that.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-01 00:48    [W:0.049 / U:9.956 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site