On 2019-08-28 05:54:26 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:27:39AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2019-08-27 08:53:06 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Am I understanding this correctly? > > > > Everything perfect except that it is not lockdep complaining but the > > WARN_ON_ONCE() in rcu_note_context_switch(). > > This one, right? > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0); > > Another approach would be to change that WARN_ON_ONCE(). This fix might > be too extreme, as it would suppress other issues: > > WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE) && !preempt && > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0); > > But maybe what is happening under the covers is that preempt is being > set when sleeping on a spinlock. Is that the case?
I would like to keep that check and that is why we have: | #if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL) | sleeping_l = t->sleeping_lock; | #endif | WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt && t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0 && !sleeping_l); in -RT and ->sleeping_lock is that counter that is incremented in spin_lock(). And the only reason why sleeping_lock_inc() was used in the patch was to disable _this_ warning. > Thanx, Paul Sebastian
