Skip to content
Commit 91710728 authored by Thomas Gleixner's avatar Thomas Gleixner Committed by Ingo Molnar
Browse files

locking: Introduce local_lock()

preempt_disable() and local_irq_disable/save() are in principle per CPU big
kernel locks. This has several downsides:

  - The protection scope is unknown

  - Violation of protection rules is hard to detect by instrumentation

  - For PREEMPT_RT such sections, unless in low level critical code, can
    violate the preemptability constraints.

To address this PREEMPT_RT introduced the concept of local_locks which are
strictly per CPU.

The lock operations map to preempt_disable(), local_irq_disable/save() and
the enabling counterparts on non RT enabled kernels.

If lockdep is enabled local locks gain a lock map which tracks the usage
context. This will catch cases where an area is protected by
preempt_disable() but the access also happens from interrupt context. local
locks have identified quite a few such issues over the years, the most
recent example is:

  b7d5dc21

 ("random: add a spinlock_t to struct batched_entropy")

Aside of the lockdep coverage this also improves code readability as it
precisely annotates the protection scope.

PREEMPT_RT substitutes these local locks with 'sleeping' spinlocks to
protect such sections while maintaining preemtability and CPU locality.

local locks can replace:

  - preempt_enable()/disable() pairs
  - local_irq_disable/enable() pairs
  - local_irq_save/restore() pairs

They are also used to replace code which implicitly disables preemption
like:

  - get_cpu()/put_cpu()
  - get_cpu_var()/put_cpu_var()

with PREEMPT_RT friendly constructs.

Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Acked-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200527201119.1692513-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de
parent 4f470fff
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment