[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201209103427.GK2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:34:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 4/9] softirq: Make softirq control and processing RT
aware
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:01:55PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> +void __local_bh_disable_ip(unsigned long ip, unsigned int cnt)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int newcnt;
> +
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(in_hardirq());
> +
> + /* First entry of a task into a BH disabled section? */
> + if (!current->softirq_disable_cnt) {
> + if (preemptible()) {
This reminds me of that migrate_disable() thing that didn't work, and
has similar problems.
preempt_disable();
local_bh_disable();
preempt_enable();
spin_lock(&foo);
is valid (albeit daft) code that will now malfunction.
> + local_lock(&softirq_ctrl.lock);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists