* [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels @ 2023-02-15 6:10 Zqiang 2023-02-18 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Zqiang @ 2023-02-15 6:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dave, paulmck, josh; +Cc: linux-kernel For PREEMPT_RT kernel, the spin_lock, spin_lock_irq will converted to sleepable rt_spin_lock and the interrupt related suffix for spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect CPU's interrupt state. this commit therefore add raw_spin_lock torture tests, this is a strict spin lock implementation in RT kernels. Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> --- kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c index 9425aff08936..521197366f27 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c @@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops = { .name = "spin_lock_irq" }; +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock); + +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused) +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock) +{ + raw_spin_lock(&torture_raw_spinlock); + return 0; +} + +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock(int tid __maybe_unused) +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock) +{ + raw_spin_unlock(&torture_raw_spinlock); +} + +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_ops = { + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock, + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay, + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost, + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock, + .readlock = NULL, + .read_delay = NULL, + .readunlock = NULL, + .name = "raw_spin_lock" +}; + +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused) +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock) +{ + unsigned long flags; + + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&torture_raw_spinlock, flags); + cxt.cur_ops->flags = flags; + return 0; +} + +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused) +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock) +{ + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&torture_raw_spinlock, cxt.cur_ops->flags); +} + +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_irq_ops = { + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq, + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay, + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost, + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq, + .readlock = NULL, + .read_delay = NULL, + .readunlock = NULL, + .name = "raw_spin_lock_irq" +}; +#endif + static DEFINE_RWLOCK(torture_rwlock); static int torture_rwlock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused) @@ -1017,6 +1072,9 @@ static int __init lock_torture_init(void) static struct lock_torture_ops *torture_ops[] = { &lock_busted_ops, &spin_lock_ops, &spin_lock_irq_ops, +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT + &raw_spin_lock_ops, &raw_spin_lock_irq_ops, +#endif &rw_lock_ops, &rw_lock_irq_ops, &mutex_lock_ops, &ww_mutex_lock_ops, -- 2.25.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels 2023-02-15 6:10 [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels Zqiang @ 2023-02-18 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-02-19 5:04 ` Zhang, Qiang1 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-02-18 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zqiang; +Cc: dave, josh, linux-kernel On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 02:10:35PM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > For PREEMPT_RT kernel, the spin_lock, spin_lock_irq will converted > to sleepable rt_spin_lock and the interrupt related suffix for > spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect CPU's > interrupt state. this commit therefore add raw_spin_lock torture > tests, this is a strict spin lock implementation in RT kernels. > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> A nice addition! Is this something you will be testing regularly? If not, should there be additional locktorture scenarios, perhaps prefixed by "RT-" to hint that they are not normally available? Or did you have some other plan for making use of these? Thanx, Paul > --- > kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > index 9425aff08936..521197366f27 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > @@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops = { > .name = "spin_lock_irq" > }; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock); > + > +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused) > +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock) > +{ > + raw_spin_lock(&torture_raw_spinlock); > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock(int tid __maybe_unused) > +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock) > +{ > + raw_spin_unlock(&torture_raw_spinlock); > +} > + > +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_ops = { > + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock, > + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay, > + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost, > + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock, > + .readlock = NULL, > + .read_delay = NULL, > + .readunlock = NULL, > + .name = "raw_spin_lock" > +}; > + > +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused) > +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&torture_raw_spinlock, flags); > + cxt.cur_ops->flags = flags; > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused) > +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock) > +{ > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&torture_raw_spinlock, cxt.cur_ops->flags); > +} > + > +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_irq_ops = { > + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq, > + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay, > + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost, > + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq, > + .readlock = NULL, > + .read_delay = NULL, > + .readunlock = NULL, > + .name = "raw_spin_lock_irq" > +}; > +#endif > + > static DEFINE_RWLOCK(torture_rwlock); > > static int torture_rwlock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused) > @@ -1017,6 +1072,9 @@ static int __init lock_torture_init(void) > static struct lock_torture_ops *torture_ops[] = { > &lock_busted_ops, > &spin_lock_ops, &spin_lock_irq_ops, > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > + &raw_spin_lock_ops, &raw_spin_lock_irq_ops, > +#endif > &rw_lock_ops, &rw_lock_irq_ops, > &mutex_lock_ops, > &ww_mutex_lock_ops, > -- > 2.25.1 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels 2023-02-18 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-02-19 5:04 ` Zhang, Qiang1 2023-02-22 22:57 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Zhang, Qiang1 @ 2023-02-19 5:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: paulmck; +Cc: dave, josh, linux-kernel >On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 02:10:35PM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > For PREEMPT_RT kernel, the spin_lock, spin_lock_irq will converted > to sleepable rt_spin_lock and the interrupt related suffix for > spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect CPU's > interrupt state. this commit therefore add raw_spin_lock torture > tests, this is a strict spin lock implementation in RT kernels. > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> > >A nice addition! Is this something you will be testing regularly? >If not, should there be additional locktorture scenarios, perhaps prefixed >by "RT-" to hint that they are not normally available? > >Or did you have some other plan for making use of these? Hi Paul Thanks for reply, in fact, I want to enrich the test of locktorture, after all, under the PREEMPT_RT kernel, we lost the test of the real spin lock. Thanks Zqiang > > Thanx, Paul > > --- > kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > index 9425aff08936..521197366f27 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > @@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops = { > .name = "spin_lock_irq" > }; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock); > + > +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused) > +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock) > +{ > + raw_spin_lock(&torture_raw_spinlock); > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock(int tid __maybe_unused) > +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock) > +{ > + raw_spin_unlock(&torture_raw_spinlock); > +} > + > +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_ops = { > + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock, > + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay, > + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost, > + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock, > + .readlock = NULL, > + .read_delay = NULL, > + .readunlock = NULL, > + .name = "raw_spin_lock" > +}; > + > +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused) > +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock) > +{ > + unsigned long flags; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&torture_raw_spinlock, flags); > + cxt.cur_ops->flags = flags; > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused) > +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock) > +{ > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&torture_raw_spinlock, cxt.cur_ops->flags); > +} > + > +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_irq_ops = { > + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq, > + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay, > + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost, > + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq, > + .readlock = NULL, > + .read_delay = NULL, > + .readunlock = NULL, > + .name = "raw_spin_lock_irq" > +}; > +#endif > + > static DEFINE_RWLOCK(torture_rwlock); > > static int torture_rwlock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused) > @@ -1017,6 +1072,9 @@ static int __init lock_torture_init(void) > static struct lock_torture_ops *torture_ops[] = { > &lock_busted_ops, > &spin_lock_ops, &spin_lock_irq_ops, > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > + &raw_spin_lock_ops, &raw_spin_lock_irq_ops, > +#endif > &rw_lock_ops, &rw_lock_irq_ops, > &mutex_lock_ops, > &ww_mutex_lock_ops, > -- > 2.25.1 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels 2023-02-19 5:04 ` Zhang, Qiang1 @ 2023-02-22 22:57 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-02-23 3:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-02-22 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhang, Qiang1; +Cc: dave, josh, linux-kernel On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 05:04:41AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote: > > >On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 02:10:35PM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > > For PREEMPT_RT kernel, the spin_lock, spin_lock_irq will converted > > to sleepable rt_spin_lock and the interrupt related suffix for > > spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect CPU's > > interrupt state. this commit therefore add raw_spin_lock torture > > tests, this is a strict spin lock implementation in RT kernels. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> > > > >A nice addition! Is this something you will be testing regularly? > >If not, should there be additional locktorture scenarios, perhaps prefixed > >by "RT-" to hint that they are not normally available? > > > >Or did you have some other plan for making use of these? > > Hi Paul > > Thanks for reply, in fact, I want to enrich the test of locktorture, > after all, under the PREEMPT_RT kernel, we lost the test of the > real spin lock. Very well, how does the following look? Thanx, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ commit edc9d419ee8c22821ffd664466a5cf19208c3f02 Author: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> Date: Wed Feb 15 14:10:35 2023 +0800 locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels In PREEMPT_RT kernels, both spin_lock() and spin_lock_irq() are converted to sleepable rt_spin_lock(). This means that the interrupt related suffix for spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect the CPU's interrupt state. This commit therefore adds raw spin-lock torture tests. This in turn permits pure spin locks to be tested in PREEMPT_RT kernels. Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c index 9425aff089365..ed8e5baafe49f 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c @@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops = { .name = "spin_lock_irq" }; +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock); + +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused) +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock) +{ + raw_spin_lock(&torture_raw_spinlock); + return 0; +} + +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock(int tid __maybe_unused) +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock) +{ + raw_spin_unlock(&torture_raw_spinlock); +} + +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_ops = { + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock, + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay, + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost, + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock, + .readlock = NULL, + .read_delay = NULL, + .readunlock = NULL, + .name = "raw_spin_lock" +}; + +static int torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused) +__acquires(torture_raw_spinlock) +{ + unsigned long flags; + + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&torture_raw_spinlock, flags); + cxt.cur_ops->flags = flags; + return 0; +} + +static void torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq(int tid __maybe_unused) +__releases(torture_raw_spinlock) +{ + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&torture_raw_spinlock, cxt.cur_ops->flags); +} + +static struct lock_torture_ops raw_spin_lock_irq_ops = { + .writelock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_lock_irq, + .write_delay = torture_spin_lock_write_delay, + .task_boost = torture_rt_boost, + .writeunlock = torture_raw_spin_lock_write_unlock_irq, + .readlock = NULL, + .read_delay = NULL, + .readunlock = NULL, + .name = "raw_spin_lock_irq" +}; +#endif // #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT + static DEFINE_RWLOCK(torture_rwlock); static int torture_rwlock_write_lock(int tid __maybe_unused) @@ -1017,6 +1072,9 @@ static int __init lock_torture_init(void) static struct lock_torture_ops *torture_ops[] = { &lock_busted_ops, &spin_lock_ops, &spin_lock_irq_ops, +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT + &raw_spin_lock_ops, &raw_spin_lock_irq_ops, +#endif // #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT &rw_lock_ops, &rw_lock_irq_ops, &mutex_lock_ops, &ww_mutex_lock_ops, ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels 2023-02-22 22:57 ` Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-02-23 3:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2023-02-23 4:34 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Davidlohr Bueso @ 2023-02-23 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul E. McKenney; +Cc: Zhang, Qiang1, josh, linux-kernel On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >commit edc9d419ee8c22821ffd664466a5cf19208c3f02 >Author: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> >Date: Wed Feb 15 14:10:35 2023 +0800 > > locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels > > In PREEMPT_RT kernels, both spin_lock() and spin_lock_irq() are converted > to sleepable rt_spin_lock(). This means that the interrupt related suffix > for spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect the CPU's > interrupt state. This commit therefore adds raw spin-lock torture tests. > This in turn permits pure spin locks to be tested in PREEMPT_RT kernels. > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> This is a nice addition, thanks. Just one comment below. >diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c >index 9425aff089365..ed8e5baafe49f 100644 >--- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c >+++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c >@@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops = { > .name = "spin_lock_irq" > }; > >+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT >+static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock); How about leaving raw spinlocks regardless of preempt-rt, and instead change the default lock (which is spin_lock) based on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT and use the raw one in that case? Thanks, Davidlohr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels 2023-02-23 3:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso @ 2023-02-23 4:34 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-02-23 5:13 ` Zhang, Qiang1 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-02-23 4:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Davidlohr Bueso; +Cc: Zhang, Qiang1, josh, linux-kernel On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 07:53:59PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > commit edc9d419ee8c22821ffd664466a5cf19208c3f02 > > Author: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> > > Date: Wed Feb 15 14:10:35 2023 +0800 > > > > locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels > > > > In PREEMPT_RT kernels, both spin_lock() and spin_lock_irq() are converted > > to sleepable rt_spin_lock(). This means that the interrupt related suffix > > for spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect the CPU's > > interrupt state. This commit therefore adds raw spin-lock torture tests. > > This in turn permits pure spin locks to be tested in PREEMPT_RT kernels. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > > This is a nice addition, thanks. Just one comment below. > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > > index 9425aff089365..ed8e5baafe49f 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > > @@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops = { > > .name = "spin_lock_irq" > > }; > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock); > > How about leaving raw spinlocks regardless of preempt-rt, and instead > change the default lock (which is spin_lock) based on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > and use the raw one in that case? That makes a lot of sense to me! In fact, I tested this by deleting those #ifdef statements. ;-) Zqiang, would you like to take the patch and make that change, with attribution? Thanx, Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels 2023-02-23 4:34 ` Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-02-23 5:13 ` Zhang, Qiang1 2023-02-23 14:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Zhang, Qiang1 @ 2023-02-23 5:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: paulmck, Davidlohr Bueso; +Cc: josh, linux-kernel > On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > commit edc9d419ee8c22821ffd664466a5cf19208c3f02 > > Author: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> > > Date: Wed Feb 15 14:10:35 2023 +0800 > > > > locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels > > > > In PREEMPT_RT kernels, both spin_lock() and spin_lock_irq() are converted > > to sleepable rt_spin_lock(). This means that the interrupt related suffix > > for spin_lock/unlock(_irq, irqsave/irqrestore) do not affect the CPU's > > interrupt state. This commit therefore adds raw spin-lock torture tests. > > This in turn permits pure spin locks to be tested in PREEMPT_RT kernels. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > > This is a nice addition, thanks. Just one comment below. > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > > index 9425aff089365..ed8e5baafe49f 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c > > @@ -257,6 +257,61 @@ static struct lock_torture_ops spin_lock_irq_ops = { > > .name = "spin_lock_irq" > > }; > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(torture_raw_spinlock); > > How about leaving raw spinlocks regardless of preempt-rt, and instead > change the default lock (which is spin_lock) based on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT > and use the raw one in that case? > >That makes a lot of sense to me! In fact, I tested this by deleting >those #ifdef statements. ;-) > >Zqiang, would you like to take the patch and make that change, with >attribution? If I understand correctly, I should remove #ifdef statements, right? If yes, I will change and resend 😊. Thanks Zqiang > > Thanx, Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels 2023-02-23 5:13 ` Zhang, Qiang1 @ 2023-02-23 14:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Davidlohr Bueso @ 2023-02-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhang, Qiang1; +Cc: paulmck, josh, linux-kernel On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote: >If I understand correctly, I should remove #ifdef statements, right? Yes, but also please make torture_type default depend on PREEMPT_RT. Thanks, Davidlohr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-02-23 15:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-02-15 6:10 [PATCH] locktorture: Add raw_spinlock* torture tests for PREEMPT_RT kernels Zqiang 2023-02-18 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-02-19 5:04 ` Zhang, Qiang1 2023-02-22 22:57 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-02-23 3:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2023-02-23 4:34 ` Paul E. McKenney 2023-02-23 5:13 ` Zhang, Qiang1 2023-02-23 14:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.