Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 02/15] locking/local_lock: Add local nested BH locking infrastructure.

On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 08:53:05AM +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.
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@linutronix.de>

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

I'm assuming this (and the previous) patch will make their way through
the network tree, seeing how it's users and everything else is network
stuff.