[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220901154321.apyq7246srkjthfr@moria.home.lan>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 11:43:21 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
hannes@...xchg.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, mgorman@...e.de,
dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
void@...ifault.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
mcgrof@...nel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org,
changbin.du@...el.com, ytcoode@...il.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
bsegall@...gle.com, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
42.hyeyoo@...il.com, glider@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com,
dvyukov@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, songmuchun@...edance.com,
arnd@...db.de, jbaron@...mai.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/30] Lazy percpu counters
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:48:39AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 10:32:19 -0400
> Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 08:51:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:48:52PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > +static void lazy_percpu_counter_switch_to_pcpu(struct raw_lazy_percpu_counter *c)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u64 __percpu *pcpu_v = alloc_percpu_gfp(u64, GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN);
> > >
> > > Realize that this is incorrect when used under a raw_spinlock_t.
> >
> > Can you elaborate?
>
> All allocations (including GFP_ATOMIC) grab normal spin_locks. When
> PREEMPT_RT is configured, normal spin_locks turn into a mutex, where as
> raw_spinlock's do not.
>
> Thus, if this is done within a raw_spinlock with PREEMPT_RT configured, it
> can cause a schedule while holding a spinlock.
Thanks, I think we should be good here but I'll document it anyways.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists