Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHmME9pe2BEJV4WiZNHmDmH_XK621Qqr1JCBdgTNZmr4JGBA4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220128223548.97807-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <CAHmME9qtjZX2kVNSQqUsTrZv1cdR8y6n3yZS-RnpVCCzX9okcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yf0JlXf3ARsBpL9K@linutronix.de> <CAHmME9r0XxX3LqNLpVeqAjDQ_OVskPf15QOwxtZYy0tb_x_7HQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yf0xy4kZ2Mn65yp8@linutronix.de> <CAHmME9oOMhRVybTgHXT+oOXhMkdx7FVY7oSc-rHr=6AvZCVo=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yf04lcQIatnGspAb@linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <Yf04lcQIatnGspAb@linutronix.de>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Feb 2022 16:39:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHmME9pO41uwYExSROc5X2+RE=a5tZfE=c=bAxVbhCHfa7=zSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] random: remove batched entropy locking
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Jonathan_Neusch=C3=A4fer?= <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Sebastian,

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:30 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > What if we keep a spinlock_t there on PREEMPT_RT but stick with
> > disabling interrupts on !PREEMPT_RT? I wish there was a solution or an
> > API that amounted to the same thing so there wouldn't need to be an
> > #ifdef, but I don't know what that'd be.
>
> If it is still to much try to look for locallock_t and
> local_lock_irqsave(). This is kind of like your local_irq_save() but
> you have lockdep annotations and PREEMPT_RT has a spinlock_t like
> behaviour. It also documents in-code what the scope of your locking is.

Oh, that's terrific, thanks! Sounds like exactly what we were looking
for. I'll respin this patch with that.

Jason