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=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 DBC78C433E9 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 14:06:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91633651C7 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 14:06:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231398AbhCIOFl (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2021 09:05:41 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53218 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231321AbhCIOFQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2021 09:05:16 -0500 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1:d65d:64ff:fe57:4e05]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EDB3C06174A; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:05:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=GcUxj6HFoWjzVTh/rDGRj8aF2cC9l7zvlZxwy+rkPI8=; b=WKOLA8/oY3iIlag8Wx/BiQQ9UT ZruJNnfDEZMEZlbHheQzFjCycn70TM2oUT68KgBQ/oxdjk5uO6Z5r4eHEVSyFbvJTCceGYgDth5sk Vl251UGOZrvZr7A7GV/nmQLUywZiRrbhkA8qlDFZnqEHNL26VX2XIoXXCFxBrj+2DvEQSxuMWfLdL +CIInWw8wLp9puRevh/gHTL42vgb6KT1OjTQOYxsbh8lRTothq+WsSQpmKRhx/y0weQQMcyJG4BDv gQl+L7vLS6m3qsVD65+FHddewi5To/GKuAJAeebO0Cj+Et8CjpgeSygrChST+/sMG8t9Y9kPsXNHu BrmOgZEQ==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lJcyi-004nvb-EB; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 14:04:57 +0000 Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 047E9304BAE; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:04:51 +0100 (CET) Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E2FFC22B8D9BA; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:04:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:04:50 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Frederic Weisbecker , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , "Ahmed S. Darwish" , Denis Kirjanov , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@qca.qualcomm.com, Kalle Valo , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>, linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net, "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Stephen Hemminger , Wei Liu , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Rob Herring , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Richter , linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [patch 00/14] tasklets: Replace the spin wait loops and make it RT safe Message-ID: References: <20210309084203.995862150@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210309084203.995862150@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 09:42:03AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > This is a follow up to the review comments of the series which makes > softirq processing PREEMPT_RT safe: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201207114743.GK3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net > > Peter suggested to replace the spin waiting in tasklet_disable() and > tasklet_kill() with wait_event(). This also gets rid of the ill defined > sched_yield() in tasklet_kill(). > > Analyzing all usage sites of tasklet_disable() and tasklet_unlock_wait() we > found that most of them are safe to be converted to a sleeping wait. > > Only a few instances invoke tasklet_disable() from atomic context. A few > bugs which have been found in course of this analysis have been already > addressed seperately. Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)