[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190917075943.qsaakyent4dxjkq4@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:59:43 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v3 3/5] sched: migrate_dis/enable: Use rt_invol_sleep
On 2019-09-11 17:57:27 [+0100], Scott Wood wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index 885a195dfbe0..32c6175b63b6 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -308,7 +308,9 @@ void pin_current_cpu(void)
> preempt_lazy_enable();
> preempt_enable();
>
> + rt_invol_sleep_inc();
> __read_rt_lock(cpuhp_pin);
> + rt_invol_sleep_dec();
>
> preempt_disable();
> preempt_lazy_disable();
I understand the other one. But now looking at it, both end up in
rt_spin_lock_slowlock_locked() which would be the proper place to do
that annotation. Okay.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists