[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111206100537.GA5203@zhy>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:05:37 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 7/7] rcu: Quiet RCU-lockdep warnings
involving interrupt disabling
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 10:52:32AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 09:26 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
>
> > Yeah, because we call might_sleep() in rt_mutex_lock() unconditionally.
> > But in this case the 'BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context
> > at *' is obviously false positive.
>
> Why can't this mutex acquisition not block?
It could block. The issue it's legal to call rt_mutex_lock() with
irqs disabled and we don't want might_sleep() bite us on this
special case. When we are going to sleep, we re-enable irq in
__rt_mutex_slowlock().
>
> > Maybe we could teach might_sleep() about this special case?
>
> Sounds horrid.
Maybe, any alternative?
Thanks,
Yong
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists