From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B4CC282CE for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:50:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824E923CEB for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:50:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727204AbfFDNuw (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 09:50:52 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:39861 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727129AbfFDNuw (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 09:50:52 -0400 Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1hY9pw-0001pl-94; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 15:50:48 +0200 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:50:48 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Julien Grall Cc: linux-rt-users , linux-arm-kernel , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Marc Zyngier , Steven Rostedt , julia@ni.com Subject: Re: KVM Arm Device passthrough and linux-rt Message-ID: <20190604135047.5bwclgkvvr642ucj@linutronix.de> References: <26832850-37ee-ae07-08ca-cc3e90978867@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <26832850-37ee-ae07-08ca-cc3e90978867@arm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org On 2019-06-04 13:58:51 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, Hi, > This is happening because vgic_v2_fold_lr_state() is expected > to be called with interrupt disabled. However, some of the path > (e.g eventfd) will take a spinlock. > > The spinlock is from the waitqueue, so using a raw_spin_lock cannot > even be considered. > > Do you have any input on how this could be solved? There is swair (init_swait_queue_head() and friends) in case that works for you. > Cheers, Sebastian