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;
Message-ID: <404575720cf24765e66020f15ce75352f08a0ddb.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v3 3/5] sched: migrate_dis/enable: Use rt_invol_sleep
From:   Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:59:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <779eddcc937941e65659a11b1867c6623a2c8890.camel@redhat.com>
References: <20190911165729.11178-1-swood@redhat.com>
         <20190911165729.11178-4-swood@redhat.com>
         <20190917075943.qsaakyent4dxjkq4@linutronix.de>
         <779eddcc937941e65659a11b1867c6623a2c8890.camel@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 09:06 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 09:59 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2019-09-11 17:57:27 [+0100], Scott Wood wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> > > index 885a195dfbe0..32c6175b63b6 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > > @@ -308,7 +308,9 @@ void pin_current_cpu(void)
> > >  	preempt_lazy_enable();
> > >  	preempt_enable();
> > >  
> > > +	rt_invol_sleep_inc();
> > >  	__read_rt_lock(cpuhp_pin);
> > > +	rt_invol_sleep_dec();
> > >  
> > >  	preempt_disable();
> > >  	preempt_lazy_disable();
> > 
> > I understand the other one. But now looking at it, both end up in
> > rt_spin_lock_slowlock_locked() which would be the proper place to do
> > that annotation. Okay.
> 
> FWIW, if my lazy migrate patchset is accepted, then there will be no users
> of __read_rt_lock() outside rwlock-rt.c and it'll be moot.

I missed the "both" -- which is the "other one" that ends up in
rt_spin_lock_slowlock_locked()?  stop_one_cpu() doesn't...

-Scott