[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250217150739.JyUlaKxI@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 16:07:39 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 03/10] locking/local_lock: Introduce
localtry_lock_t
On 2025-02-17 15:35:11 [+0100], Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > spin_trylock() is not safe due to explicit locking in the underneath
> > rt_spin_trylock() implementation. Removing this explicit locking and
> > attempting only "trylock" is undesired due to PI implications.
>
> Just to be sure, you're suggesting how to reword that sentence in the
> changelog to make it more precise right?
Yes, just a reword. Everything else is fine by me. It just feels odd ack
my own patch.
> Alexei will you incorporate that in your version?
>
> >> Note there is no need to use local_inc for acquired variable,
> >> since it's a percpu variable with strict nesting scopes.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> >
> > Other than that, thank you two ;)
>
> Thank you too :)
>
> Do you agree with my fixups and addition here?
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/efc30cf9-8351-4889-8245-cc4a6893ebf4@suse.cz/
Yes, looks good.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists