* Esben Nielsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Plus take into
> > account that the average interrupt disable section is very small .. I
> > also think it's possible to extend my version to allow those section to
> > be preemptible but keep the cost equally low.
> >
>
> The more I think about it the more dangerous I think it is. What does
> local_irq_disable() protect against? All local threads as well as
> irq-handlers. If these sections keeped mutual exclusive but preemtible
> we will not have protected against a irq-handler.
one way to make it safe/reviewable is to runtime warn if
local_irq_disable() is called from a !preempt_count() section. But this
will uncover quite some code. There's some code in the VM, in the
buffer-cache, in the RCU code - etc. that uses per-CPU data structures
and assumes non-preemptability of local_irq_disable().
> I will start to play around with the following:
> 1) Make local_irq_disable() stop compiling to see how many we are really
> talking about.
there are roughly 100 places:
$ objdump -d vmlinux | grep -w call |
grep -wE 'local_irq_disable|local_irq_save' | wc -l
116
the advantage of having such primitives as out-of-line function calls :)
> 2) Make local_cpu_lock, which on PREEMPT_RT is a rt_mutex and on
> !PREEMPT_RT turns into local_irq_disable()/enable() pairs. To introduce
> this will demand some code-analyzing for each case but I am afraid there
> is no general one-size solution to all the places.
I'm not sure we'd gain much from this. Lets assume we have a highprio RT
task that is waiting for an external event. Will it be able to preempt
the IRQ mutex? Yes. Will it be able to make any progress: no, because
it needs an IRQ thread to run to get the wakeup in the first place, and
the IRQ thread needs to take the IRQ mutex => serialization.
what seems a better is to rewrite per-CPU-local-irq-disable users to
make use of the DEFINE_PER_CPU_LOCKED/per_cpu_locked/get_cpu_lock
primitives to use preemptible per-CPU data structures. In this case
these sections would be truly preemptible. I've done this for a couple
of cases already, where it was unavoidable for lock-dependency reasons.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
