[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140423085031.GI11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:50:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Stanislav Meduna <stano@...una.org>,
"linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: BUG: spinlock trylock failure on UP, i.MX28 3.12.15-rt25
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:10:01AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 04/22/2014 04:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:46:57AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>> According to lockdep a trylock should not fail on UP.
> >
> > Oh!? Where does it say that? A trylock can fail at all times.
>
> kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c:
>
> int do_raw_spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> int ret = arch_spin_trylock(&lock->raw_lock);
>
> if (ret)
> debug_spin_lock_after(lock);
> #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
> /*
> * Must not happen on UP:
> */
> SPIN_BUG_ON(!ret, lock, "trylock failure on UP");
> #endif
> return ret;
> }
>
> How can a trylock (spinlock, not mutex) fail on UP? That would mean the
> lock is not interrupt safe.
> Unless, you attempt to take the lock from interrupt context via trylock
> while in general you take the spinlock in process context with
> interrupts enabled.
But that's not lockdep. That's the spinlock debugging code, entirely
different beasts.
--
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