[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9pO41uwYExSROc5X2+RE=a5tZfE=c=bAxVbhCHfa7=zSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 16:39:15 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] random: remove batched entropy locking
Hi Sebastian,
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:30 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > What if we keep a spinlock_t there on PREEMPT_RT but stick with
> > disabling interrupts on !PREEMPT_RT? I wish there was a solution or an
> > API that amounted to the same thing so there wouldn't need to be an
> > #ifdef, but I don't know what that'd be.
>
> If it is still to much try to look for locallock_t and
> local_lock_irqsave(). This is kind of like your local_irq_save() but
> you have lockdep annotations and PREEMPT_RT has a spinlock_t like
> behaviour. It also documents in-code what the scope of your locking is.
Oh, that's terrific, thanks! Sounds like exactly what we were looking
for. I'll respin this patch with that.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists