Re: [PATCH] locking/local_lock: Reduce local_[un]lock_nested_bh() overhead

[Eric Dumazet]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 2:44 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 12:20:55PM +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/local_lock.h b/include/linux/local_lock.h
> > index b8830148a8591c17c22e36470fbc13ff5c354955..40c2da54a0b720265be7b6327e0922a49befd8fc 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/local_lock.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/local_lock.h
> > @@ -94,12 +94,19 @@ DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(local_lock_irqsave, local_lock_t __percpu,
> >                   local_unlock_irqrestore(_T->lock, _T->flags),
> >                   unsigned long flags)
> >
> > +#if defined(WARN_CONTEXT_ANALYSIS) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || \
> > +    defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC)
> >  #define local_lock_nested_bh(_lock)                          \
> >       __local_lock_nested_bh(__this_cpu_local_lock(_lock))
> >
> >  #define local_unlock_nested_bh(_lock)                                \
> >       __local_unlock_nested_bh(__this_cpu_local_lock(_lock))
> >
> > +#else
> > +static inline void local_lock_nested_bh(local_lock_t *_lock) {}
> > +static inline void local_unlock_nested_bh(local_lock_t *__lock) {}
> > +#endif
>
> This isn't going to work; WARN_CONTEXT_ANALYSIS is unconditional on
> clang >= 22.1
>
> How come that this isn't DCEd properly?

BTW I wonder if the following WARN_CONTEXT_ANALYSIS should be
CONFIG_WARN_CONTEXT_ANALYSIS

include/linux/local_lock_internal.h:318:#if defined(WARN_CONTEXT_ANALYSIS)
include/linux/local_lock_internal.h:337:#else  /* WARN_CONTEXT_ANALYSIS */
include/linux/local_lock_internal.h:339:#endif /* WARN_CONTEXT_ANALYSIS */