On Wed, Dec 09 2020 at 11:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:01:55PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> From: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
>> + /* First entry of a task into a BH disabled section? */
>> + if (!current->softirq_disable_cnt) {
>> + if (preemptible()) {
>> + local_lock(&softirq_ctrl.lock);
>
> AFAICT this significantly changes the locking rules.
>
> Where previously we could do:
>
> spin_lock(&ponies)
> spin_lock_bh(&foo);
>
> vs
>
> spin_lock_bh(&bar);
> spin_lock(&ponies)
>
> provided the rest of the code observed: bar -> ponies -> foo
> and never takes ponies from in-softirq.
>
> This is now a genuine deadlock on RT.
I know, but making this work is trying to square the circle.
Any approach we tried before going this way had worse problems than
this particular limitation.
> Also see:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/x9cheyjuxwc75...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
I'm aware of that and it's fortunately not that many instances of this.
Thanks,
tglx
