Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 21:32:50 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/tree: Drop the lock before entering to page
 allocator
Message-ID: <20200715193250.axntj7jdt6bw52dr@linutronix.de>
References: <20200715183537.4010-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20200715185628.7b4k3o5efp4gnbla@linutronix.de>
 <20200715190243.GA26735@pc636>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200715190243.GA26735@pc636>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-07-15 21:02:43 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>     spin_lock();
>     __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
>     spin_unlock();
> <snip>
> 
> Also, please note we do it for regular kernel.

ach right okay then.

> >
> > What happened to the part where I asked for a spinlock_t?
> > 
> What do you mean?

Please drop that raw_spinlock_t for the kfree_rcu() based locking and
use just a plain spinlock_t for the locking. Then you can keep the same
code flow for RT and !RT without any special cases and everything.

> --
> Vlad Rezki

Sebastian