On 2020-05-25 09:12:14 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > ( The other departure from spinlocks is that the 'spinlock_t' name,
> > without underscores, while making the API names such as spin_lock()
> > with an underscore, was a conscious didactic choice. Applying
On 2020-05-25 09:01:39 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > From: Thomas Gleixner
> >
> > To address this PREEMPT_RT introduced the concept of local_locks which are
> > strictly per CPU.
>
> > +++ b/include/linux/locallock_internal.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
>
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> ( The other departure from spinlocks is that the 'spinlock_t' name,
> without underscores, while making the API names such as spin_lock()
> with an underscore, was a conscious didactic choice. Applying that
> principle to local locks gives us the
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner
>
> To address this PREEMPT_RT introduced the concept of local_locks which are
> strictly per CPU.
> +++ b/include/linux/locallock_internal.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +#ifndef _LINUX_LOCALLOCK_H
From: Thomas Gleixner
preempt_disable() and local_irq_disable/save() are in principle per CPU big
kernel locks. This has several downsides:
- The protection scope is unknown
- Violation of protection rules is hard to detect by instrumentation
- For PREEMPT_RT such sections, unless in
5 matches
Mail list logo
