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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 6C011C4338F for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:06:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479B860EBC for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:06:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242610AbhHFSHN (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2021 14:07:13 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:51808 "EHLO galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230242AbhHFSHL (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2021 14:07:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 20:06:53 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1628273214; 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=9B60GNwlGf4odiArXnXP8Ekr/AHmX5WOkT+csT5dOUY=; b=u7u5OVZhfAtMLVMgJubaAd0qkEesN6RXn7dGLvrOfeAy9x2TWGJpPyyuziyw7MDzI6i1ny KnNWl7MesCY6mD4z92fnNBsa1K14WxbcoHhBQIsfgVAacRfhtDknZPUrFWcPjrCd9WrZVC PGHSi6eaNUa2MdUyjFYz6VkFmS/e47/3OhylqaOdjFWsrOnwNGCGNHCt17uKoAbYo7kVFw ydB+JxOcWZXZTK3O8ZwJIcHaDqxmr3ZoHlybE7sbl2mTjbyOSCfY0rQj8f3kRRPfzSxVlx G66rAvYpjcrK80NvDsTUKV1399CjHKRtgfLqWTNBSkrN9SO0BnqWBVbiC687KA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1628273214; 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=9B60GNwlGf4odiArXnXP8Ekr/AHmX5WOkT+csT5dOUY=; b=+/GH9xj42EXJkgT54SSQy4NFWnsI/zyZ0MlBX24wXywnyeAOyi97y3P6l7Ma7s/nY0u+5e CtAqhGi6oe60ElAQ== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , Valentin Schneider , Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] notifier: Make atomic_notifiers use raw_spinlock Message-ID: <20210806180653.mohdmxgrt6h3valt@linutronix.de> References: <20210806140718.mxss3cbqijfebdo5@linutronix.de> <20210806180242.GB2184@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210806180242.GB2184@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2021-08-06 20:02:42 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 04:07:18PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > What do we do with this? > > Do we merge this as-is, add another "robust atomic notifier" using only > > raw_spinlock_t for registration and notification (for only > > cpu_pm_notifier_chain) instead of switching to raw_spinlock_t for all > > atomic notifier in -tree? > > Right, so the problem I see with this is that > notifier_chain_{,un}register() are O(n). Hardly something we should be > putting under raw_spin_lock :/ Yup, pretty much. So we make one robust notifier for cpu_pm_notifier_chain? Sebastian