[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z8ESVjynMytXObEp@Mac.home>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:33:10 -0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"open list:SCHEDULER" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/9] preempt: Introduce HARDIRQ_DISABLE_BITS
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 06:09:16PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:10:12 -0500
> Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
>
> -ENOCHANGLOG
>
Yeah, sorry, I forget to add them or ask Lyude to add when handing over
patches.
Lyude, could you add below in the future version?
In order to support preempt_disable()-like interrupt disabling, that is,
using part of preempt_count() to track interrupt disabling nested level,
change the preempt_count() layout to contain 8-bit HARDIRQ_DISABLE
count.
Note that HARDIRQ_BITS and NMI_BITS are reduced by 1 because of this,
and it changes the maximum of their (hardirq and nmi) nesting level.
(I will add patch #2's commit log shortly)
Regards,
Boqun
> Why is this patch needed?
>
> -- Steve
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists