[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-rt-users
Subject:    Re: [PATCH RT v2 2/3] sched: migrate_enable: Use sleeping_lock to indicate involuntary sleep
From:       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck () kernel ! org>
Date:       2019-08-28 15:51:20
Message-ID: 20190828155120.GQ26530 () linux ! ibm ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 09:59:38AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:14:33PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2019-08-28 05:54:26 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:27:39AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > On 2019-08-27 08:53:06 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > Am I understanding this correctly?
> > > > 
> > > > Everything perfect except that it is not lockdep complaining but the
> > > > WARN_ON_ONCE() in rcu_note_context_switch().
> > > 
> > > This one, right?
> > > 
> > > 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);
> > > 
> > > Another approach would be to change that WARN_ON_ONCE().  This fix might
> > > be too extreme, as it would suppress other issues:
> > > 
> > > 	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE) && !preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);
> > > 
> > > But maybe what is happening under the covers is that preempt is being
> > > set when sleeping on a spinlock.  Is that the case?
> > 
> > I would like to keep that check and that is why we have:
> > 
> > |   #if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL)
> > |         sleeping_l = t->sleeping_lock;
> > |   #endif
> > |         WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0 && !sleeping_l);
> > 
> > in -RT and ->sleeping_lock is that counter that is incremented in
> > spin_lock(). And the only reason why sleeping_lock_inc() was used in the
> > patch was to disable _this_ warning.
> 
> Makes sense, Sebastian.
> 
> Paul, you meant "!" in front of the IS_ENABLED right in your code snippet right?
> 
> The other issue with:
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE) && !preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);
> 
> .. could be that, the warning will be disabled for -rt entirely, not just for
> sleeping locks. And we probably do want to keep this warning for the cases in
> -rt where we are blocking but it is not a sleeping lock. Right?

Yes, my code was missing a "!", but I prefer Sebastian's and Scott's
approach to mine anyway.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]