[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240618185657.32929506@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:56:57 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
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>, 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: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 00/15] locking: Introduce nested-BH locking.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:13:16 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 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.
Trivial conflict on patch 8 but enough to make the build bots give up..
Please rebase?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists