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, 4 Aug 2021 18:57:51 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.14-rc4-rt4
Message-ID: <20210804165751.ifppsn3eqjnvfgqs@linutronix.de>
References: <feebf183-2e33-36b5-4538-62a40b2a58b6@kernel.dk>
 <20210804153308.oasahcxjmcw7vivo@linutronix.de>
 <f2d0a028-fe85-28ff-9cea-8ab1d26a15d0@kernel.dk>
 <20210804154743.niogqvnladdkfgi2@linutronix.de>
 <7c946918-ae0d-6195-6a78-b019f9bc1fd3@kernel.dk>
 <20210804121704.1587c41b@oasis.local.home>
 <20210804162231.rfj5i736lqc4nsio@linutronix.de>
 <20210804122541.741cf858@oasis.local.home>
 <20210804163119.t4c7bkpdk33byxtx@linutronix.de>
 <20210804124755.21ca7e3d@oasis.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210804124755.21ca7e3d@oasis.local.home>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-08-04 12:47:55 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:31:19 +0200
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > CPU-local wake-ups just set NEED_RESCHED and wait for preempt_enable()
> > to do the magic. Just because the code not perform wake_up() now does
> > not mean it will not do so in the future. Also it is here as an example
> > which might be copied somewhere else.
> 
> Does this mean all local_irq_disable/enable() is audited? What do you do for;
> 
> 	local_irq_disable();
> 	[..]
> 	wakeup_process(x); /* on local CPU */
> 	[..]
> 	local_irq_enable();

I hunted and fixed a few of those. I still have few
preempt_check_resched_rt() which I want fix other than what is in RT.

> And if local_irq_disable() is not used anymore, or seldom, what harm
> would it be to add a preemption check to that caller? And change
> local_irq_enable() that is used internally by other atom functions be
> called __local_irq_enable()?
> 
> Not to mention that we could just open code that too:
> 
> 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> 		local_irq_enable();
> 		preempt_check_resched();
> 	}
> 
> And make it ugly enough that nobody will want to copy it :-)

I remember that the amount of enthusiasm was quite low when it was
suggested that local_irq_enable() gets additionally the preempt-check.
Maybe was due to the people involved :)
But we managed to work around it for most callers. Therefore we I
wouldn't suggest local_irq_disable_rt(). We had it in -RT, we had a
bunch of users and all of them were fixed in a different way.

Same goes btw. for preempt_disable_rt() which has been reduced to vmstat
and had previously more users :)

> -- Steve

Sebastian