Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 11:39:47PM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
>
>> Yeah, exactly. Though, not even a single context level, but a flag
>> attached to a single context at the process level only. Using
>> preempt_count() == 0 as the preemption boundary.
>>
>> However, this has a problem with the PREEMPT_COUNT=n case because that
>> doesn't have a preemption boundary.
>
> So, with a little sleep, the nested exception/interrupt case should be
> good, irqenrty_enter() / irqentry_nmi_enter() unconditionally increment
> preempt_count with HARDIRQ_OFFSET / NMI_OFFSET.
>
> So while regular preempt_{dis,en}able() will turn into a NOP, the entry
> code *will* continue to increment preempt_count.
Right, I was talking about the regular preempt_disable()/_enable() that
will turn into a NOP with PREEMPT_COUNT=n.
Actually, let me reply to the mail where you had described this case.
--
ankur
