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:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 14:49:01 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, dave.martin@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Convert hook_lock to raw_spin_lock_t
 in cpu_enable_ssbs()
Message-ID: <20190604134901.GE6610@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
References: <20190530113058.1988-1-julien.grall@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190530113058.1988-1-julien.grall@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:30:58PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> cpu_enable_ssbs() is called via stop_machine() as part of the cpu_enable
> callback. A spin lock is used to ensure the hook is registered before
> the rest of the callback is executed.
> 
> On -RT spin_lock() may sleep. However, all the callees in stop_machine()
> are expected to not sleep. Therefore a raw_spin_lock() is required here.
> 
> Given this is already done under stop_machine() and the work done under
> the lock is quite small, the latency should not increase too much.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>

Queued for 5.3. Thanks.

-- 
Catalin