[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1323167246.32012.60.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:27:26 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
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, 2011-12-06 at 10:52 +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?
Gaah!! I see, this 5342e269 patch is revolting.. guys that's really vile
don't do that!
I tried reading the RCU code but I gave up.. rcu_boost() does:
rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked();
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
rt_mutex_lock();
rt_mutex_unlock();
vs rcu_read_unlock_special()'s RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED branch:
rt_mutex_unlock();
The latter looks to be unbalanced because I can't actually find a
matching lock. Also, all of that is ran with IRQs enabled. So what's the
problem?
--
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