[PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Don't acquire rt_spin_lock in allocate_vpe_l1_table()

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 3:55 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy at linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On 2026-01-12 12:14:30 [-0500], Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 1/12/26 10:09 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > They might be acquired though. Only alloc_pages_nolock() guarantees that
> > > no lock is taken IIRC.
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion. I will look into using that for page allocation.
> > I had actually attempt to use kmalloc_nolock() to replace kzalloc()
> > initially. Even though it removed the call to rmqueue(), but there were
> > other spinlocks in the slub code that were still being acquired like the
> > local_lock() or the spinlock in the get_random() code. So I gave up using
> > that. Anyway, kmalloc_nolock() doesn't seem to be fully working yet.
>
> with kmalloc_nolock() you have to be able to deal with a NULL pointer.
> Looking at kmalloc_nolock(), it has this (in_nmi() || in_hardirq())
> check on PREEMPT_RT. The reasoning was unconditional raw_spinlock_t
> locking and bad lock-owner recording for hardirq.
> There was a trylock path for local_lock to make it work from atomic
> context. But from what I can tell this goes
>   kmalloc_nolock_noprof() -> __slab_alloc_node() -> __slab_alloc() ->
>   ___slab_alloc() -> local_lock_cpu_slab()
>
> The last one does local_lock_irqsave() on PREEMPT_RT which does a
> spin_lock(). That means atomic context is not possible. Where did I make
> a wrong turn? Or did this change recently? I do remember that Alexei
> reworked parts of the allocator to make the local_lock based trylock
> allocation work.

Are you forgetting about local_lock_is_locked() in __slab_alloc() ?
With sheaves the whole thing will be very different.