[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180522132429.6f1dcf92@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 13:24:29 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] arm64: fpsimd: use a local_lock() in addition to
local_bh_disable()
On Tue, 22 May 2018 19:21:16 +0200
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On 2018-05-22 13:10:04 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 May 2018 14:40:06 +0200
> > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > +static DEFINE_LOCAL_IRQ_LOCK(fpsimd_lock);
> > > /*
> > > * Update current's FPSIMD/SVE registers from thread_struct.
> > > *
> > > @@ -594,6 +595,7 @@ int sve_set_vector_length(struct task_struct *task,
> > > * non-SVE thread.
> > > */
> > > if (task == current) {
> > > + local_lock(fpsimd_lock);
> > > local_bh_disable();
> >
> > I'm surprised that we don't have a "local_lock_bh()"?
>
> right. Like the last time when we introduced a global lock with no
> locking context?
>
I meant, we could have local_lock_bh(fpsimd_lock); that would turn into
a local_bh_disable() when !PREEMPT_RT.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists