[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200319090426.512510cb@lwn.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 09:04:26 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [patch V2 08/15] Documentation: Add lock ordering and nesting
documentation
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 21:43:10 +0100
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> The kernel provides a variety of locking primitives. The nesting of these
> lock types and the implications of them on RT enabled kernels is nowhere
> documented.
>
> Add initial documentation.
...time to add a a couple of nits...:)
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
> V2: Addressed review comments from Randy
> ---
> Documentation/locking/index.rst | 1
> Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst | 298 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 299 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst
>
> --- a/Documentation/locking/index.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/locking/index.rst
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ locking
> .. toctree::
> :maxdepth: 1
>
> + locktypes
> lockdep-design
> lockstat
> locktorture
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,298 @@
> +.. _kernel_hacking_locktypes:
> +
So ... I vaguely remember that some Thomas guy added a document saying we
should be putting SPDX tags on our files? :)
> +==========================
> +Lock types and their rules
> +==========================
[...]
> +PREEMPT_RT caveats
> +==================
> +
> +spinlock_t and rwlock_t
> +-----------------------
> +
> +The substitution of spinlock_t and rwlock_t on PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels
> +with RT-mutex based implementations has a few implications.
> +
> +On a non PREEMPT_RT enabled kernel the following code construct is
> +perfectly fine::
> +
> + local_irq_disable();
> + spin_lock(&lock);
> +
> +and fully equivalent to::
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&lock);
> +
> +Same applies to rwlock_t and the _irqsave() suffix variant.
> +
> +On a PREEMPT_RT enabled kernel this breaks because the RT-mutex
> +substitution expects a fully preemptible context.
> +
> +The preferred solution is to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` or
> +:c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` and their unlock counterparts.
We don't need (and shouldn't use) :c:func: anymore; just saying
spin_lock_irq() will cause the Right Things to happen.
Thanks,
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists