On Wed, Dec 09 2020 at 13:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:36:54PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> 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.
>
> OK, but that would've been very good Changelog material methinks.
Let me add that.
> Also, then we should probably make sure PREEMPT_RT=n builds start
> suffering the same problem by adding the local_lock unconditionally,
> otherwise this keeps being a PREEMPT_RT special and we'll keep having to
> fix it up.
For lockdep builds I assume. I'd like to postpone that for a while like
we postponed the rawlock nesting lockdep stuff until we have the vast
majority sorted out.
Thanks,
tglx
