On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 05:11:37PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-01-28 11:50:37 [-0800], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello, Sebastian,
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > Just doing my periodic (but decidedly non-real-time) scan of RCU-related
> > patches in -rt, in this case v5.10.8-rt23:
> >
> > f3541b467fbb ("sched: Do not account rcu_preempt_depth on RT in
> > might_sleep()")
> > If the scheduler maintainers are OK with their part of this patch,
> > looks good to me, given CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT. Feel free to add:
> > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
>
> Thank. I think we should pump it together with the rt-mutex part. But I
> add a note.
>
> > d8c5a7d75e08 ("rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on
> > RT")
> > This one I need to understand better. I do like the use of local
> > variables to make the "if" conditions less unruly.
>
> This originated in
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
> I planned to post it upstream last cycle but it appears that it broke
> apart and I did not yet look how to fix it.
I do recall the discussion, I just need to get up to speed on the
details. ;-)
> > The rest are in -rcu already:
> >
> > a163ef8687a1 ("rcu: make RCU_BOOST default on RT")
> > Commit 2341bc4a0311 in -rcu. In yesterday's pull request.
> > 5ffd75a96828 ("rcu: Use rcuc threads on PREEMPT_RT as we did")
> > Commit 8b9a0ecc7ef5 in -rcu. In yesterday's pull request.
> > e0b671bca2e7 ("rcu: enable rcu_normal_after_boot by default for RT")
> > Commit 36221e109eb2 in -rcu. In yesterday's pull request.
> > e27ef68731a1 ("rcu: Don't invoke try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() with irqs
> > disabled")
> > This one is in v5.10 mainline.
>
> \o/
>
> > Any reason I shouldn't pull in db93e2f1b4b0 ("rcu: Prevent false positive
> > softirq warning on RT") for v5.13?
>
> tglx has a version of that with your Reviewed-by tag on it in this
> softirq tree waiting. So I guess just sit it out ;)
Works for me!
Thanx, Paul
> Thank you for looking Paul.
> > Thanx, Paul
>
> Sebastian
