[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<GV1PR08MB10521520ABD7B72D92FD60DE9FB292@GV1PR08MB10521.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:39:22 +0000
From: Yeo Reum Yun <YeoReum.Yun@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>, "mike.leach@...aro.org"
<mike.leach@...aro.org>, "james.clark@...aro.org" <james.clark@...aro.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"bigeasy@...utronix.de" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, "clrkwllms@...nel.org"
<clrkwllms@...nel.org>, "coresight@...ts.linaro.org"
<coresight@...ts.linaro.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev"
<linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev>, nd <nd@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] coresight: change coresight_device lock type to
raw_spinlock_t
Hi Steven,
> We should start documenting what is not real-time "safe". That is, if this
> code is executed, we have a loop here that holds a raw spin lock. This
> appears to make the time the raw spin lock held to be non deterministic.
>
> If someone is running PREEMPT_RT and expects deterministic behavior, they
> cannot be using this code. That is fine, but we should probably create a
> document somewhere that notes this.
>
> -- Steve
I think it's quite deterministic becase the number of loop currently
determined by the number of preload_feats.
Also, I don't think the number of feats will be loaded as much as
it can do undeterministic behavior since
the number is not many and it is quite predictable.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists