[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231215171020.687342-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:07:19 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 00/24] locking: Introduce nested-BH locking.
Hi,
Disabling bottoms halves acts as per-CPU BKL. On PREEMPT_RT code within
local_bh_disable() section remains preemtible. As a result high prior
tasks (or threaded interrupts) will be blocked by lower-prio task (or
threaded interrupts) which are long running which includes softirq
sections.
The proposed way out is to introduce explicit per-CPU locks for
resources which are protected by local_bh_disable() and use those only
on PREEMPT_RT so there is no additional overhead for !PREEMPT_RT builds.
The series introduces the infrastructure and converts large parts of
networking which is largerst stake holder here. Once this done the
per-CPU lock from local_bh_disable() on PREEMPT_RT can be lifted.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists