[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181013135058.GC4931@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:50:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/kasan: make quarantine_lock a raw_spinlock_t
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 04:56:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> There are several reasons for using raw_*, so an explanatory comment at
> each site is called for.
>
> However it would be smarter to stop "using raw_* for several reasons".
> Instead, create a differently named variant for each such reason. ie, do
>
> /*
> * Nice comment goes here. It explains all the possible reasons why -rt
> * might use a raw_spin_lock when a spin_lock could otherwise be used.
> */
> #define raw_spin_lock_for_rt raw_spinlock
>
> Then use raw_spin_lock_for_rt() at all such sites.
The whole raw_spinlock_t is for RT, no other reason. It is the one true
spinlock.
>From this, it naturally follows that:
- nesting order: raw_spinlock_t < spinlock_t < mutex_t
- raw_spinlock_t sections must be bounded
The patch under discussion is the result of the nesting order rule; and
is allowed to violate the second rule, by virtue of it being debug code.
There are no other reasons; and I'm somewhat confused by what you
propose.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists