Re: irq lock inversion

[Tejun Heo]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> This warning is bogus -- sched_init() is being called very early with IRQs
>>> disabled, and the irqsave/restore code paths in pcpu_alloc() are only for early
>>> init. The path can never be called from irq context once the early init
>>> finishes. Rationale for this is explained in changelog of the commit mentioned
>>> above.
>>>
>>> This problem can be encountered generally in any other early code running
>>> with IRQs off and using irqsave/irqrestore.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx>
>> Looks good to me.  Ingo, what do you think?
> 
> Ugh, this explanation is _BOGUS_. As i said, taking a lock with irqs 
> disabled does _NOT_ mark a lock as 'irq safe' - if it did, we'd have 
> false positives left and right.
> 
> Read the lockdep message please, consider all the backtraces it prints, 
> it says something different.

Ah... okay, the pcpu_free() path is correctly marking the lock
irqsafe.  I assumed this was caused by recent pcpu_alloc() change.
Sorry about that.  The lock inversion problem has always been there,
it just never showed up because none has use allocation map that large
I suppose.

So, the correct fix would be either 1. push down irqsafeness down to
vmalloc locks or 2. the rather ugly unlock-lock dancing in
pcpu_extend_area_map() I posted earlier.  For 2.6.32, I guess we'll
have to go with #2.  For longer term, we'll probably have to do #1 as
it's required to implement atomic percpu allocations too.

I'll try to reproduce the problem here and verify the previous locking
dance patch.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/