On Thu, Aug 05 2021 at 15:04, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 02:56:53PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 04 2021 at 15:23, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> Mel,
>>
>> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 03:42:25PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >> The idea was not build-time, but runtime (hidden behind lockdep, VM_DEBUG or
>> >> whatnot), i.e.:
>> >>
>> >> <sched_expert> what that code needs is switch(item) { case foo1: case foo2:
>> >> lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled(); break; case bar1: case bar2:
>> >> lockdep_assert_preempt_disabled(); lockdep_assert_no_in_irq(); break; } or
>> >> something along those lines
>> >>
>> > Ok, that would potentially work. It may not even need to split the stats
>> > into different enums. Simply document which stats need protection from
>> > IRQ or preemption and use PROVE_LOCKING to check if preemption or IRQs
>> > are disabled depending on the kernel config. I don't think it gets rid
>> > of preempt_disable_rt unless the API was completely reworked with entry
>> > points that describe the locking requirements. That would be tricky
>> > because the requirements differ between kernel configurations.
>>
>> Right. This won't get rid of the preempt disabling on RT, but I think we
>> should rather open code this
>>
>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
>> preempt_dis/enable();
>>
>> instead of proliferating these helper macros which have only one user left.
>>
>
> Ok, that is reasonable. I tried creating a vmstat-specific helper but the
> names were misleading so I ended up with the patch below which open-codes
> it as you suggest. The comment is not accurate because "locking/local_lock:
> Add RT support" is not upstream but it'll eventually be accurate.
>
> Is this ok?
Looks good.
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
