Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 01/14] locking/local_lock: Add local nested BH locking infrastructure.

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2024-06-06 09:52:44 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 05:24:08PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Add local_lock_nested_bh() locking. It is based on local_lock_t and the
> > naming follows the preempt_disable_nested() example.
> > 
> > For !PREEMPT_RT + !LOCKDEP it is a per-CPU annotation for locking
> > assumptions based on local_bh_disable(). The macro is optimized away
> > during compilation.
> > For !PREEMPT_RT + LOCKDEP the local_lock_nested_bh() is reduced to
> > the usual lock-acquire plus lockdep_assert_in_softirq() - ensuring that
> > BH is disabled.
> > 
> > For PREEMPT_RT local_lock_nested_bh() acquires the specified per-CPU
> > lock. It does not disable CPU migration because it relies on
> > local_bh_disable() disabling CPU migration.
> 
> should we assert this? lockdep_assert(current->migration_disabled) or
> somesuch should do, rite?

local_lock_nested_bh() has lockdep_assert_in_softirq(). You want the
migration check additionally or should that softirq assert work?

> > With LOCKDEP it performans the usual lockdep checks as with !PREEMPT_RT.
> > Due to include hell the softirq check has been moved spinlock.c.
> > 
> > The intention is to use this locking in places where locking of a per-CPU
> > variable relies on BH being disabled. Instead of treating disabled
> > bottom halves as a big per-CPU lock, PREEMPT_RT can use this to reduce
> > the locking scope to what actually needs protecting.
> > A side effect is that it also documents the protection scope of the
> > per-CPU variables.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Otherwise I suppose sp.. not a fan of the whole nested thing, but I
> don't really have an alternative proposal so yeah, whatever :-)

Cool.

Sebastian