On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 00:03, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Which on a PREEMPT_COUNT=n build will cause preemption while holding the
> spinlock. I think something like the below will cause sufficient
> warnings to avoid growing patterns like that.
Hmm. I don't think that warning is valid.
Disabling preemption is actually fine if it's done in an interrupt,
iow if we have
allow_resched();
-> irq happens
spin_lock(); // Ok and should *not* complain
...
spin_unlock();
<- irq return (and preemption)
which actually makes me worry about the nested irq case, because this
would *not* be ok:
allow_resched();
-> irq happens
-> *nested* irq happens
<- nested irq return (and preemption)
ie the allow_resched() needs to still honor the irq count, and a
nested irq return obviously must not cause any preemption.
I've lost sight of the original patch series, and I assume / hope that
the above isn't actually an issue, but exactly because I've lost sight
of the original patches and only have this one in my mailbox I wanted
to check.
Linus
