Received: by 2002:ac0:a582:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m2-v6csp698754imm; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:54:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62OQ0yOks9nnvV/zi0u+oBYCF8ebquTFk7FjwgCLiPEUDUD8/dsJBEhoXWxVoC31hTG0tDY X-Received: by 2002:a62:7885:: with SMTP id t127-v6mr28595272pfc.259.1539165272333; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:54:32 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1539165272; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=hio/VDFchI6/BA9WhSwx+MG5zTc2jsA60kJB997TFwpYhfouwm7jRdomEXxUrVnHsg 88vFLGuaqZohO/kE0ZPyYumwEDPi3gWkTS5xGHAuB9cFLL6TEbMvHjaED0SOf/b7u+kd tlojtZGRALhcd22It+XqEiWoouDuEYvxzyh2PY/Z+eoL41ZhnR06CZY//v8S5nB3eq9D IU8H59yUkxb57lv9ikbgpHw9KCEGGAUaX4CCfushAyGkSJsJsixQktGUtSfTRn1VHVEL gm6lu4anILqPLSslQKS2CqFymVt3Q0R9yxkRBboGONNDJw0xrH7DcW5PZ8stvNePsZg3 Z5ug== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=/+HneeuZJrNpS6bUcPI6prfHb+owZiEZjAaoznOefA8=; b=FhWS8JktxF98AVOvmMAx0WigO6cBpQDSawtpcc6Lr981VzyIETu3630a/uiiAGQUrN hPPM2Fd/6O45ubBUBrpURbpFcTeIQ2AzKHFlzoXAbw+G2pI0tCVjKMtr+6mPrwUMl1CK V8m82baLjWRTEk0KGj5JhMyObARs+gzfC7lq3G7559LjnNbIqxpzRgzanES/0JEQCx+x uheDI7Zk/hGovdsd77py0mowjCCm7d/7WbB1kdnkJYHTCmeT4lx07F0U9BvSCxBg11Av saq18+zxSV5GJHbcMZFGE6w9E3P0D++4jc5gNFDBCdoE+XUVkJkeyuYp8fb8oXiKW016 SN0g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 207-v6si23876037pgb.298.2018.10.10.02.54.17; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 02:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727016AbeJJRPM (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:15:12 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:45069 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726515AbeJJRPL (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:15:11 -0400 Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gABBX-0004zk-Dl; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:53:43 +0200 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:53:43 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Clark Williams , Alexander Potapenko , kasan-dev , Linux-MM , LKML , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: convert kasan/quarantine_lock to raw_spinlock Message-ID: <20181010095343.6qxved3owi6yokoa@linutronix.de> References: <20180918152931.17322-1-williams@redhat.com> <20181005163018.icbknlzymwjhdehi@linutronix.de> <20181005163320.zkacovxvlih6blpp@linutronix.de> <20181009142742.ikh7xv2dn5skjjbe@linutronix.de> <20181010092929.a5gd3fkkw6swco4c@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018-10-10 11:45:32 [+0200], Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > Should I repost Clark's patch? > > > I am much more comfortable with just changing the type of the lock. Yes, that is what Clark's patch does. Should I resent it? > What are the bad implications of using the raw spinlock? Will it help > to do something along the following lines: > > // Because of ... > #if CONFIG_RT > #define quarantine_spinlock_t raw_spinlock_t > #else > #define quarantine_spinlock_t spinlock_t > #endif no. For !RT spinlock_t and raw_spinlock_t are the same. For RT spinlock_t does not disable interrupts or preemption while raw_spinlock_t does. Therefore holding a raw_spinlock_t might increase your latency. Sebastian