Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:38:28 -0400 | From | Waiman Long <> | Subject | Re: Linux 3.16-rc6 |
| |
On 07/24/2014 02:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra<peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >>> So going by the nifty picture rostedt made: >>> >>> [ 61.454336] CPU0 CPU1 >>> [ 61.454336] ---- ---- >>> [ 61.454336] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); >>> [ 61.454336] local_irq_disable(); >>> [ 61.454336] lock(tasklist_lock); >>> [ 61.454336] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); >>> [ 61.454336]<Interrupt> >>> [ 61.454336] lock(tasklist_lock); >> So this *should* be fine. It always has been in the past, and it was >> certainly the *intention* that it should continue to work with >> qrwlock, even in the presense of pending writers on other cpu's. >> >> The qrwlock rules are that a read-lock in an interrupt is still going >> to be unfair and succeed if there are other readers. > Ah, indeed. Should have checked :/ > >> So it sounds to me like the new lockdep rules in tip/master are too >> strict and are throwing a false positive. > Right. Waiman can you have a look?
Yes, I think I may have a solution for that.
Borislav, can you apply the following patch on top of the lockdep patch to see if it can fix the problem?
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c index d24e433..507a8ce 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c @@ -3595,6 +3595,12 @@ void lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int raw_local_irq_save(flags); check_flags(flags);
+ /* + * An interrupt recursive read in interrupt context can be considered + * to be the same as a recursive read from checking perspective. + */ + if ((read == 3) && in_interrupt()) + read = 2; current->lockdep_recursion = 1; trace_lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check, nest_lock, ip); __lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check,
| |