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;
Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:39:43 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
Cc:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching
 FPSIMD/SVE state
Message-ID: <20190405143942.xtpq5443qbc4gziy@linutronix.de>
References: <20190208165513.8435-1-julien.grall@arm.com>
 <20190404105233.GD3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <a46f9fd4-dd31-c892-aec1-ae69072be92d@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a46f9fd4-dd31-c892-aec1-ae69072be92d@arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-04-05 10:02:45 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
> RT folks already saw this corruption because local_bh_disable() does not
> preempt on RT. They are carrying a patch (see "arm64: fpsimd: use
> preemp_disable in addition to local_bh_disable()") to disable preemption
> along with local_bh_disable().
> 
> Alternatively, Julia suggested to introduce a per-cpu lock to protect the
> state. I am thinking to defer this for a follow-up patch. The changes in
> this patch should make it easier because we now have helper to mark the
> critical section.

A per-CPU lock? It has to be a raw_spinlock_t because a normal
spin_lock() / local_lock() would allow scheduling and might be taken as
part of the context switch or soon after.

Sebastian