[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241119071510.-6OKEw2q@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:15:10 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@...dia.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/tegra241-cmdqv: do not call smp_processor_id in
preemptible context
On 2024-11-18 21:19:28 [-0300], Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> With PREEMPT_RT enabled some of the calls to tegra241_cmdqv_get_cmdq()
> during boot will happen in preemptible context. As this function calls
> smp_processor_id(), these calls will trigger a "BUG: using smp_processor_id()
> in preemptible" backtrace if DEBUG_PREEMPT is enabled.
If this is only on PREEMPT_RT, where is the disabled preemption coming
from on !PREEMPT_RT?
> As tegra241_cmdqv_get_cmdq() only calls smp_processor_id() to use the
> CPU number as a factor to balance out traffic on cmdq usage, it is safe
> to use raw_smp_processor_id() here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists