On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 09:59:38AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:14:33PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Makes sense, Sebastian.
>
> Paul, you meant "!" in front of the IS_ENABLED right in your code snippet
> right?
>
> The other issue with:
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE) && !preempt &&
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0);
>
> .. could be that, the warning will be disabled for -rt entirely, not just for
> sleeping locks. And we probably do want to keep this warning for the cases in
> -rt where we are blocking but it is not a sleeping lock. Right?
Yes, my code was missing a "!", but I prefer Sebastian's and Scott's
approach to mine anyway. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
