On (25/02/06 09:26), Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2025-02-06 17:17:41 [+0900], Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > Okay. So there are requirements for the sleeping lock. A mutex isn't > > > fitting the requirement because it is too large I guess. > > > > Correct. > > I would nice to state this why a generic locking implementation can not > be used. From what I have seen it should play along with RT nicely. Will do. > > > > wait_on_bit_lock() has might_sleep(). > > > > > > My point exactly. This makes the WARN_ON_ONCE() obsolete. > > > > Right, might_sleep() can be disabled, as far as I understand, > > via CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, unlike WARN_ON_ONCE(). But I > > can drop it and then just rely on might_sleep(), should be > > enough. > > It should be enough. mutex_lock(), down() and so on relies solely on it. > As I said, preemptible() only works on preemptible kernels if it comes > to the preemption counter on and !preemptible kernels with enabled > debugging. Ack.
