From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 145FD3C17 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 12:16:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754914572; cv=none; b=Rl8rmG7s88tACKgsCnDPv8Eb+enRkCg+wBOlZKggd/vEMUOEJtZ7blPJlAtZN8WbbZH8yxaPMIyEZifVHmIsFMYBQ/0BvbHcKOHV8DewdR2aRGJHx16iF0QOjWxOPT6tgzIFxmETe+WEokIX2Zh0ekFUsvipb96CZxfVXoXeAcM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754914572; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3kwatRnYk3RX35FlFlbtS2MVDULbtDc8/9WTF951bWc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pW0KSr47wHwv3Ze8Cj/KCUas2DoWqq+7D7wHLBU18Q4D4SUX3Yyr/6apMgjeeDSlwfWmHwDFRx3nZFaMVjfXhShrO03ZoRsI5P/2FWfsJnnLwGWs7Kqg4trkOBJu1K9uZvZGvB3k19NsN+Rbt8oh4Mxfr1eXxnmhh95M3qngjuk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=2k3dTJRB; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=PjgZgDp8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="2k3dTJRB"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="PjgZgDp8" Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:16:07 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1754914569; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DOTmBQpM+cQ1IjodLpqZoppxDe1NCdgUTVoiL5h5BpQ=; b=2k3dTJRBpAPbF4IkUC5BZgaDrbe4Ql6DG3qRfy9uhrhdJ9SSx+VR3sYwhebsI91NyWW4JA JjMirW9RvZKoXIt1a8cUxas94m2/MabKzF6MZPIZbk8QBG6qvMJnNdBy+x3igtVNwiqFAy fgNLKCrn5mGbV9RriDsEH3+9RU/XbvEbcUBlsFxdS2hdFwBE8fnw0p0lSOuOFC/0RkiMta o5SNUoH8SOaKrT2veeJI9wMPqVUNTG1ql9UYykMYcoHlpKAIbMnWbDpNb3Zw9UbTjn0r/8 SKY1tSwo9RtXs8VBDtUzsW1uCb+ozfBy7GPnfBW04Ni6GiVxI3j8v4cjOSPSJQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1754914569; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DOTmBQpM+cQ1IjodLpqZoppxDe1NCdgUTVoiL5h5BpQ=; b=PjgZgDp8Qn5nnwmaByZDNCgs/PHv4p4zFqsuEydspUiCOEAbYiK4ujcFMBMimM62UUnD2D SKd23HPf3LaZw/DA== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , Peter Zijlstra , Clark Williams , Steven Rostedt , Tejun Heo , David Vernet , Barret Rhoden , Josh Don , Crystal Wood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Juri Lelli , Ben Segall , Dietmar Eggemann , Ingo Molnar , Mel Gorman , Valentin Schneider , Vincent Guittot , Thomas Gleixner , Wander Lairson Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sched: do not call __put_task_struct() on rt if pi_blocked_on is set Message-ID: <20250811121607.Z6G889tB@linutronix.de> References: <20250728201441.GA4690@redhat.com> <20250729114702.GA18541@redhat.com> <20250729130936.GB18541@redhat.com> <20250801102428.GB27835@redhat.com> <20250811105948.OafBprND@linutronix.de> <20250811110617.GB5250@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250811110617.GB5250@redhat.com> On 2025-08-11 13:06:18 [+0200], Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 08/11, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > On 2025-08-01 12:24:29 [+0200], Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > s/LD_WAIT_SLEEP/LD_WAIT_CONFIG/ needs another discussion even if I am right, > > > sorry for the confusion. > > > > You are correct Oleg. I've been just verifying it and yes: LD_WAIT_SLEEP > > suppresses also mutex while the intention is to only suppress > > spinlock_t. > > Good, thanks. > > > We have four users in tree, based on quick check all four should use > > CONFIG, three of them do use SLEEP. > > Yes. I'll send the simple patch when this patch from Luis is merged. Okay. Let me cover then the other instances. > Oleg Sebastian