On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 09:06 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 09:59 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2019-09-11 17:57:27 [+0100], Scott Wood wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c > > > index 885a195dfbe0..32c6175b63b6 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/cpu.c > > > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c > > > @@ -308,7 +308,9 @@ void pin_current_cpu(void) > > > preempt_lazy_enable(); > > > preempt_enable(); > > > > > > + rt_invol_sleep_inc(); > > > __read_rt_lock(cpuhp_pin); > > > + rt_invol_sleep_dec(); > > > > > > preempt_disable(); > > > preempt_lazy_disable(); > > > > I understand the other one. But now looking at it, both end up in > > rt_spin_lock_slowlock_locked() which would be the proper place to do > > that annotation. Okay. > > FWIW, if my lazy migrate patchset is accepted, then there will be no users > of __read_rt_lock() outside rwlock-rt.c and it'll be moot. I missed the "both" -- which is the "other one" that ends up in rt_spin_lock_slowlock_locked()? stop_one_cpu() doesn't... -Scott
