[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250811105948.OafBprND@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:59:48 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
David Vernet <dvernet@...a.com>, Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Crystal Wood <crwood@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if
pi_blocked_on is set
On 2025-08-01 12:24:29 [+0200], Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> s/LD_WAIT_SLEEP/LD_WAIT_CONFIG/ needs another discussion even if I am right,
> sorry for the confusion.
You are correct Oleg. I've been just verifying it and yes: LD_WAIT_SLEEP
suppresses also mutex while the intention is to only suppress
spinlock_t.
We have four users in tree, based on quick check all four should use
CONFIG, three of them do use SLEEP.
> Oleg.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists