From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Bouska, Zdenek" <zdenek.bouska@siemens.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Kiszka, Jan" <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
"linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan@ti.com>
Subject: Re: Unfair qspinlocks on ARM64 without LSE atomics => 3ms delay in interrupt handling
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 23:29:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pm7qxrg6.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AS1PR10MB567534190B05A4493674173BEB659@AS1PR10MB5675.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
On Wed, Apr 26 2023 at 12:03, Zdenek Bouska wrote:
> following patch is my current approach for fixing this issue. I introduced
> big_cpu_relax(), which uses Will's implementation [1] on ARM64 without
> LSE atomics and original cpu_relax() on any other CPU.
Why is this interrupt handling specific? Just because it's the place
where you observed it?
That's a general issue for any code which uses atomics for forward
progress. LL/SC simply does not guarantee that.
So if that helps, then this needs to be addressed globaly and not with
some crude hack in the interrupt handling code.
> Anyone has a better idea how to solve this issue properly?
Use hardware with LSE atomics :)
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-26 21:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <AS1PR10MB567534190B05A4493674173BEB659@AS1PR10MB5675.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
2023-04-26 21:29 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2023-04-27 9:38 ` Unfair qspinlocks on ARM64 without LSE atomics => 3ms delay in interrupt handling Bouska, Zdenek
2023-04-27 10:06 ` Will Deacon
2023-04-27 13:14 ` Jan Kiszka
2023-04-27 13:45 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2023-04-28 7:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-04-28 7:37 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2023-03-24 8:43 Bouska, Zdenek
2023-03-24 17:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2023-03-24 18:09 ` Will Deacon
2023-03-28 9:39 ` Bouska, Zdenek
2023-03-27 5:44 ` Bouska, Zdenek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87pm7qxrg6.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=p-mohan@ti.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=zdenek.bouska@siemens.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).