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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 0D720C43441 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F6A2085B for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:53:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C4F6A2085B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727040AbeJJRPM (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:15:12 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:45069 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726515AbeJJRPL (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:15:11 -0400 Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gABBX-0004zk-Dl; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:53:43 +0200 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:53:43 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Clark Williams , Alexander Potapenko , kasan-dev , Linux-MM , LKML , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: convert kasan/quarantine_lock to raw_spinlock Message-ID: <20181010095343.6qxved3owi6yokoa@linutronix.de> References: <20180918152931.17322-1-williams@redhat.com> <20181005163018.icbknlzymwjhdehi@linutronix.de> <20181005163320.zkacovxvlih6blpp@linutronix.de> <20181009142742.ikh7xv2dn5skjjbe@linutronix.de> <20181010092929.a5gd3fkkw6swco4c@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018-10-10 11:45:32 [+0200], Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > Should I repost Clark's patch? > > > I am much more comfortable with just changing the type of the lock. Yes, that is what Clark's patch does. Should I resent it? > What are the bad implications of using the raw spinlock? Will it help > to do something along the following lines: > > // Because of ... > #if CONFIG_RT > #define quarantine_spinlock_t raw_spinlock_t > #else > #define quarantine_spinlock_t spinlock_t > #endif no. For !RT spinlock_t and raw_spinlock_t are the same. For RT spinlock_t does not disable interrupts or preemption while raw_spinlock_t does. Therefore holding a raw_spinlock_t might increase your latency. Sebastian