From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCC24315D58 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:07:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768403272; cv=none; b=rsrpBP8QGn3xfu2LSpZlSyR/dutqgRNWG2/F17LWrAECflvJGLBYnvseNUtwshAO9Yip2tMB16TB+RWurHCKawtDFMdMpy/17JpVDnICxFXS7/vNqYu3xVUeae8EHq4z3axApjUnByAwA/NSMusgp7Dy8GRtJhs5EleYa3OaFoQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768403272; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ijoxmLcpYK8TmrtRBiqA3q93MmpkarK1JAhh1J+Mtr4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=g2X1xNAdN6hY1QrU3+5n0PeFzoCNpSTDJD11y+YoWX8D/XDd+Z0ehUroiT3DZdyndGPLerdlprCMhKwOwhYKK3J2neiarGwei6IbaX9uRyvCuZVTO6dDOwTF0kSaCCGmdsH2ejBxb+Pbig11iTgSFTefMo4teyKFopQEl+PNuCk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=DpI+2DhX; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=XVZv71+I; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="DpI+2DhX"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="XVZv71+I" Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 16:07:47 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1768403269; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4C72mCKj6g75hWi4SDABu63k1LKvcFbsA+RvmMJke0I=; b=DpI+2DhXGNoB3K9LoI1svHbcKbv3kxb2YyFFdspbE5qXTTBPF+9h8s+FkerT3INURZk5p/ kBC4L+PoGogVnYmWhgwtvG9+TCDDITAdJYtste182B6otosAomrdWroG5Tbv5B6Yc2uTQ+ GJQFj6T9tnxuLbW1XUpoqfqjq0CpAV1W4jvu1ogkvswQPrE/c+QHamLYa+ZiRKeKtc294b psHNbgTT91lHQklnZcMYINuG1AtadMiWoojmUNN/TJd4ET2c0Qy5/mfpwRF+3VCRm8rnCG VZmF0F8rXveRojhDwnXI4kf8N6X2BFd5voVKrZT9HMRi3bv38Q+SGQg7TlZtLg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1768403269; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4C72mCKj6g75hWi4SDABu63k1LKvcFbsA+RvmMJke0I=; b=XVZv71+IElwl1uhi03hZmyhqfq9kC8+MP1iK9rfNstyKTMmeHAzHgb7zHvRiRzgdQqo5vQ AO99yxFvYK6TmyBg== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Harry Yoo , Petr Tesarik , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Roman Gushchin , Hao Li , Andrew Morton , Uladzislau Rezki , "Liam R. Howlett" , Suren Baghdasaryan , Alexei Starovoitov , linux-mm , LKML , linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, bpf , kasan-dev Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 06/20] slab: make percpu sheaves compatible with kmalloc_nolock()/kfree_nolock() Message-ID: <20260114150747.ziWhVVQM@linutronix.de> References: <20260112-sheaves-for-all-v2-0-98225cfb50cf@suse.cz> <20260112-sheaves-for-all-v2-6-98225cfb50cf@suse.cz> <20260113183604.ykHFYvV2@linutronix.de> <596a5461-eb50-40e5-88ca-d5dbe1fc6a67@suse.cz> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 2026-01-14 15:05:34 [+0100], Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > Yes IIRC Hao Li pointed that out before. We'll be able to remove that > > !preemptible() check that we area about to add by the patch above. > > > > But I'm not sure we can remove (or "not put back") the "in_nmi() || > > in_hardirq()" too, because as you said it was added with different reasoning > > initially? > > Ah right, it was "copied" from alloc_frozen_pages_nolock_noprof() where it's > explained more, and AFAICS will be still applicable with sheaves. We should > add a comment to kmalloc_nolock() referring to the > alloc_frozen_pages_nolock_noprof() comment... Right. This looks halfway what I remember. And this was works in atomic context on RT because of rmqueue_pcplist()/ pcp_spin_trylock() usage. Sebastian