[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171005153759.GG647@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:37:59 -0500
From: Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
<bigeasy@...utronix.de>, <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Dean Luick <dean.luick@...el.com>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Kaike Wan <kaike.wan@...el.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian.siewior@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Sanchez <sebastian.sanchez@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IB/hfi1: Use preempt_{dis,en}able_nort()
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?
Julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists