[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZOA8n/uPrkAKg86b@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 04:53:03 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@...ngson.cn>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, David Disseldorp <ddiss@...e.de>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] pipe: use __pipe_{lock,unlock} instead of spinlock
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 11:28:58AM +0800, Hongchen Zhang wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 2023/8/14 pm 4:47, David Howells wrote:
> > Hongchen Zhang <zhanghongchen@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> >
> > > - spin_lock_irq(&pipe->rd_wait.lock);
> > > + __pipe_lock(pipe);
> >
> I changed the code and the post_one_notification is not called inside spin
> lock ,please check this patch again.
In remove_watch_from_object(), you moved post_one_notification() before
lock_queue(), but it's still called inside a RCU read-side critical
section, which cannot sleep.
Please test with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP before you send a new version.
You should probably turn on DEBUG_SPINLOCK, LOCKDEP, DEBUG_MUTEXES
and a few other debug options.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists