[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230412124836.GF628377@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:48:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"42.hyeyoo@...il.com" <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"roman.gushchin@...ux.dev" <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
"iamjoonsoo.kim@....com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"penberg@...nel.org" <penberg@...nel.org>,
"cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zhao Gongyi <zhaogongyi@...edance.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as
raw_spinlock
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 03:30:20PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> Maybe we should make CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING depend on
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT:
>
> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> index f0d5b82e478d..257b170aacb6 100644
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -1262,6 +1262,7 @@ config PROVE_LOCKING
> config PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING
> bool "Enable raw_spinlock - spinlock nesting checks"
> depends on PROVE_LOCKING
> + depends on PREEMPT_RT
> default n
> help
> Enable the raw_spinlock vs. spinlock nesting checks which ensure
No, very much not. The idea is that we want to work towards having this
always enabled (when PROVE_LOCKING) to ensure code gets and stays
PREEMPT_RT clean.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists