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:   Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:20:39 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@oracle.com>, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Jan Glauber <jglauber@marvell.com>,
        Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        dave.dice@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance
 into CNA
Message-ID: <20200125112039.GX11457@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cfdf635d-be2e-9d4b-c4ca-6bcbddc6868f@redhat.com>
 <3862F8A1-FF9B-40AD-A88E-2C0BA7AF6F58@oracle.com>
 <20200124075235.GX14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <2c6741c5-d89d-4b2c-cebe-a7c7f6eed884@redhat.com>
 <48ce49e5-98a7-23cd-09f4-8290a65abbb5@redhat.com>
 <8D3AFB47-B595-418C-9568-08780DDC58FF@oracle.com>
 <714892cd-d96f-4d41-ae8b-d7b7642a6e3c@redhat.com>
 <1669BFDE-A1A5-4ED8-B586-035460BBF68A@oracle.com>
 <45660873-731a-a810-8c57-1a5a19d266b4@redhat.com>
 <b26837a9-d0cd-4413-95ec-1deaca184324@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b26837a9-d0cd-4413-95ec-1deaca184324@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 01:51:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:

< 71 lines of garbage >

> > You can use the in_task() macro in include/linux/preempt.h. This is
> > just a percpu preempt_count read and test. If in_task() is false, it
> > is in a {soft|hard}irq or nmi context. If it is true, you can check
> > the rt_task() macro to see if it is an RT task. That will access to
> > the current task structure. So it may cost a little bit more if you
> > want to handle the RT task the same way.
> >
> We may not need to do that for softIRQ context. If that is the case, you
> can use in_irq() which checks for hardirq and nmi only. Peter, what is
> your thought on that?

Can you lot please start trimming emails when you reply?