On Tue, 22 May 2018 19:33:33 +0200
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On 2018-05-22 13:24:29 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 May 2018 19:21:16 +0200
> > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-05-22 13:10:04 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 17 May 2018 14:40:06 +0200
> > > > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> 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.
>
Did you decide to create a local_lock_bh(lock) function? I don't see it.
And should this be backported to 4.14-rt too? You state you saw this in
4.16-rt, but did you start doing something different then, or did the
kernel change?
Thanks!
-- Steve
