Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:54:54 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/9] slub: Make PREEMPT_RT support less convoluted | From | Vlastimil Babka <> |
| |
On 8/24/22 15:25, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2022-08-23 19:15:43 [+0200], Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>> +#define slub_local_irq_save(flags) local_irq_save(flags) >>> +#define slub_local_irq_restore(flags) local_irq_restore(flags) >> >> Note these won't be neccessary anymore after >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220823170400.26546-6-vbabka@suse.cz/T/#u > > Okay, let me postpone that one and rebase what is left on top. > >>> @@ -482,7 +488,7 @@ static inline bool __cmpxchg_double_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab >>> void *freelist_new, unsigned long counters_new, >>> const char *n) >>> { >>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) >>> + if (use_lockless_fast_path()) >>> lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled(); >> >> This test would stay after the patch I referenced above. But while this >> change will keep testing the technically correct thing, the name would be >> IMHO misleading here, as this is semantically not about the lockless fast >> path, but whether we need to have irqs disabled to avoid a deadlock due to >> irq incoming when we hold the bit_spin_lock() and its handler trying to >> acquire it as well. > > Color me confused. Memory is never allocated in-IRQ context on > PREEMPT_RT. Therefore I don't understand why interrupts must be disabled > for the fast path (unless that comment only applied to !RT).
Yes that only applied to !RT. Hence why the assert is there only for !RT.
> It could be about preemption since spinlock, local_lock don't disable > preemption and so another allocation on the same CPU is possible. But > then you say "we hold the bit_spin_lock()" and this one disables > preemption. This means nothing can stop the bit_spin_lock() owner from > making progress and since there is no memory allocation in-IRQ, we can't > block on the same bit_spin_lock() on the same CPU.
Yeah, realizing that this is true on RT led to the recent patch I referenced. Initially when converting SLUB to RT last year I didn't realize this detail, and instead replaced the irq disabling done (only on !RT) by e.g. local_lock_irqsave with the manual local_irq_save().
> Sebastian
| |