On 2018-05-22 13:24:29 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2018 19:21:16 +0200 > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2018-05-22 13:10:04 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 May 2018 14:40:06 +0200 > > > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > +static DEFINE_LOCAL_IRQ_LOCK(fpsimd_lock); > > > > /* > > > > * Update current's FPSIMD/SVE registers from thread_struct. > > > > * > > > > @@ -594,6 +595,7 @@ int sve_set_vector_length(struct task_struct *task, > > > > * non-SVE thread. > > > > */ > > > > if (task == current) { > > > > + local_lock(fpsimd_lock); > > > > local_bh_disable(); > > > > > > I'm surprised that we don't have a "local_lock_bh()"? > > > > right. Like the last time when we introduced a global lock with no > > locking context? > > > > I meant, we could have local_lock_bh(fpsimd_lock); that would turn into > a local_bh_disable() when !PREEMPT_RT.
Oh that part. That could be possible I guess. I need to look into the second part which disables preemption while the FPU is taken. > -- Steve Sebastian
