On 2024-04-25 at 09:47:52 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024, Chen Yu wrote:
> > Hi Sean,
> >
> > On 2024-03-12 at 12:39:11 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Use preempt_model_preemptible() to detect a preemptible kernel when
> > > deciding whether or not to reschedule in order to drop a contended
> > > spinlock or rwlock. Because PREEMPT_DYNAMIC selects PREEMPTION, kernels
> >
> > It took me a while to wonder why PREEMPT_DYNAMIC selects PREEMPTION
> > in Kconfig, then I assume that you mean the static config is CONFIG_PREEMPTION,
> > but the live preemption model is "none" or "voluntary", which makes the
> > static check of CONFIG_PREEMPTION in spin_needbreak() and rwlock_needbreak()
> > invalid?
>
> Yep, exactly.
>
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> > > index 3fcd20de6ca8..63dd8cf3c3c2 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> > > @@ -462,11 +462,10 @@ static __always_inline int spin_is_contended(spinlock_t *lock)
> > > */
> > > static inline int spin_needbreak(spinlock_t *lock)
> > > {
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
> > > + if (!preempt_model_preemptible())
> >
> > The old version checks against static CONFIG_PREEMPTION, now we check
> > the live CONFIG_PREEMPTION and static CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, just wonder
> > if the rt check is needed here?
>
> It's required, as CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y doesn't imply CONFIG_PREEMPT, and
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y is mutually exclusive with CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC. I.e. a
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y kernel will look yield:
>
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=n
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=n
>
> which in turn generates:
>
> static inline bool preempt_model_full(void)
> {
> return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT);
> }
>
> and so just checking preempt_model_full() would incorrectly return false for
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y.
You are right, I missunderstood the definition of preempt_model_full(). For my
understanding of this patch:
Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
thanks,
Chenyu
